6: Astonishing Shell internal communications about John Donovan

Above sinister internal Shell email with a large circulation list (redacted by Shell) spelling out Shell’s aggressive plans targeting the Donovan’s, including setting up a team to combat the Donovan’s activities.

Selection of Shell internal communications and information relating to Alfred Donovan and John Donovan obtained from Shell in December 2009, March 2010, and April 2011. Supplied by Shell in response to SAR applications under the Data Protection Act 1998 by Alfred Donovan and John Donovan

Includes confidential highly sensitive Shell internal communications and documents relating to Alfred and John Donovan that Shell had no idea would ever end up in the hands of the Donovan’s. The black crosses denote information/names redacted by Shell. Some of the more interesting revelations are highlighted in red text. Reveals the degree of paranoia and panic at Shell about the Donovan’s online activities. Dated from May 2006 onwards.

3/5 May 2006 Five Pages – Leaflet Distribution

From: . .
Sent: 03 May 2006 08:34
To: :
Cc: i

Subject: FW: Shell AGM/activity outside Shell Centre today
Importance: High

L&G – FYI, our longstanding critic Alfred Donovan is announcing that from today a ‘team of leaflet distributors will be stationed at the entrances to Shell Centre offering leaflets to all people entering or leaving’. Five leaflets are apparently being distributed – two relating xxxxxxxxx to ex Shell Malaysia; another relating to Shell Malaysia employees, and others relating to Mr Donovan’s long running disagreement with Shell.

We might expect that the reality in terms of action will be limited; nevertheless, we should be aware, Grateful if xxxxx can do the necessary re Security, and xxxx be aware in case of any media interest. Also, people expecting visitors (especially important ones?) from outside Shell might like to be aware of this – suggest perhaps xxxxxxxxxx could check with eg the concierge service/receptions?

There is a (retired) issue brief, as below, on Mr Donovan held on LiveLink, focused on the domain name dispute with Mr Donovan, We will work with xxxxxxxx and others to update this, in case the activity does become more visible as the AGM draws near.

Regards

—–Original Messaae—–
From:
Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2UUt>11:37
To:
Cc:
Subject: Media Response: Alfred Donovan distributing leaflets outside Shell Centre

Colleagues,

Representatives of Alfred Donovan, a long-time anti-Shell campaigner are distributing leaflets outside of York Reception today. The leaflet is a litany of complaints relating to previous disputes over rights to marketing concepts, a dispute over domain names but also includes new allegations that Shell is seeking to imprison xxxxxx xxxxxxxx who “blew the whistle at Shell Malaysia on the reserves fraud”.

Please find attached a scanned copy of the leaflet being distributed outside Shell Centre, a media response detailing the history of Shell’s disputes with Mr Donovan and a media statement and Q&A dealing specifically with the domain name dispute.

We are currently working with EP and Shell Malaysia to develop a response to the allegations regarding his colleagues which I will circulate separately. We have not received any media enquiries.

Kind regards,

« File: Donovan Leaflet 030506,pdf »
« File: Donovan holding statement 7_7 _04.doc (komprimiert) »
« Message: Response: Donovan website domain name complaint »

—–Original 1VI”””:>n”—–
From:
Sent: 05 May200614:48
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: ‘Donovan’ leaflets outside Shell Centre

Hi xxxxx? – I gather you were asking about the couple of people handing out leaflets outside Shell Centre yesterday and today.

They are linked to a family called Donovan, which has a longstanding disagreement with Shell. John Donovan and his father, Alfred, ran a business, Don Marketing, which specialised in the creation of promotions, Mr Donovan brought the “Make Money” promotion to the UK and Shell UK Limited paid him for its use, Shell also paid for the rights to use several other Don Marketing promotions.

In the early 1990s when Shell wanted to use Make Money again Mr Donovan claimed that he still owned the concept. Shell paid Donovan for the transfer of the concept.

Mr Donovan then launched legal action against Shell in connection with two other promotions. While Shell was confident of defeating the claim, in the interest of saving costs for both sides, it was agreed that the matter would be settled.

Following this settlement, Mr Donovan sued Shell again. He claimed that he had invented the Smart promotion and that Shell had “stolen” it from him. The case went to court but Donovan eventually abandoned his claim.

Despite the settlement of the legal actions Alfred Donovan has continued to campaign against Shell from time to time, and their website makes a point of publishing critical comments about us.

We sometimes have minor activity like this outside Shell Centre, but we usually feel that sending any information out to all staff merely serves to draw attention to the activity, which otherwise would pass by pretty much unnoticed.

Hope this helps.

Regards

11 May 2006 10:09

From:
Sent: donderdaq 11 mei 2006 10:09
To:
Subject: Mr Donovan brief

I’ve had a first pass at the Mr. Donovan Issue Brief. Its quite complicated (depending how in-depth you propose to go in response to his accusations)

In order to make the brief a bit more robust – in my view there are a number of outstanding questions that need to be answered. Grateful for your advice on who to contact and/or assistance in contacting them (given the potential sensitiveness of some of the questions):

(2) Why are eight (8) Shell companies suing Mr. Donovan – if It is necessary to issue proceedings why can’t Shell do this once?

(4) Mr. Donovan alleges that Shell had (his) legal aid cut off (during the SMART case). Is this the case?

(5) Mr Donovan has registered the domain name www.royaldutchshellplc.com <http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com>. Shell filed a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy complaint – but this was not supported by the courts ((Why wasn’t it supported by the courts?))

W

Alfred
Donovan.doc

regards

15 May 2006 Focal Point

15.5. 2006

Confidential

Focal Point:

Issue: Mr. Alfred Donovan

Issue Description: Mr. Alfred Donovan, a long-time critic of Shell, runs website http://royaldutchshellplc.com that is critical of the Shell Group. In May 2006 leaflet distributors working on behalf of Mr. Donovan distributed materials outside Shell Centre and The Hague headquarters. To date, five leaflets have been distributed – two relating to an ex-employee of Shell Malaysia who, the leaflets claim, was sacked unfairly after informing his management of concerns via the whistle blowing procedure; another relating to Shell Malaysia employees engaged in legal proceedings against Shell, and others relating to Mr Donovans long running disagreement with Shell.

Further details on each are given below under ‘supporting messages’.

Key Messages: 
• We are disappointed that Mr Donovan’s long-running campaign against Shell has again resurfaced.
• We are fully aware of the accusations made by Mr Donovan – however, as the cases (xxxxx and and ‘Team A’) are pending before the Courts, and as all parties are actively participating in the hearings, it would be inappropriate to comment.

Supporting Messages: 
• We are very familiar with the circumstances of Mr. Donovan’s case over many years. Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring Mr Donovans claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago.

Issue Sensitivitv/AGM relevance 
John Donovan and his father, Alfred, ran a business, Don Marketing, which specialised in the creation of promotions. Mr Donovan brought the “Make Money” promotion to the UK and Shell UK Limited (Shell) paid him for its use. Shell also paid for the rights to use several other Don Marketing promotions.

In the early ’90s when Shell wanted to use Make Money again, Mr Donovan claimed that he still owned the concept. Shell paid Donovan for the transfer of the concept.

Mr Donovan then launched legal action against Shell in connection with two other promotions. While Shell was confident of defeating the claim, in the interest of saving costs for both sides, it was agreed that the matter would be settled.

Following this settlement, Mr Donovan sued Shell again. He claimed that he had invented the Smart promotion and that Shell had “stolen” it from him. The case went to court but Donovan eventually abandoned his claim.

Despite the settlement of the legal actions Alfred Donovan has continued to campaign against Shell from time to time.

Given his recent leafleting activities outside Shell Centre and the C16 office in The Hague, it is entirely likely that he may have people also handing out leaflets outside the AGM locations.

Domain Name registration 
Prior to the public announcement of [the unification], Shell secured the domain name www.royaldutchshell.com and similar names in almost every country. Following the announcement, Mr. Donovan also registered a number of domain names including www.royaldutchshellplc.com Shell filed an administrative complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation requesting the transfer of the names to Shell, but the adjudication panel did not accept that there were grounds for the transfer. There is no appeal from that decision, and although there may be scope for a separate legal challenge through the courts, Shell did not consider that such action was justified in this case.

Q&A’s 
1. What is Alfred Donovan currently accusing Shell of? 
Mr Donovan’s current promotional literature is supportive of xxxxxxxxxx an ex-employee of Shell Malaysia who claims he was unfairly sacked; Shell Malaysia employees engaged in legal proceedings against Shell, and his printed and web-based materials continue to promote a number of Mr. Donovan’s long running disagreements with Shell.

Mr Donovan’s personal grievances with Shell includes accusations by Mr Donovan that he, his son and other members of his family were the subject of a dirty tricks campaign by Shell during the last piece of litigation and that Shell were responsible for burglaries which took place during the litigation. Shell’s solicitors did employ a respectable firm of enquiry agents during the course of the litigation. They acted entirely properly and legally. It is untrue that Shell had anything to do with any intimidation or burglary. Shell offered complete co-operation with the police at this time, but this wasn’t taken up.

2. Alfred Donovan accuses Shell of using its association with the Hakluyt Society and through them, British Intelligence to conduct a dirty tricks campaign. Is this true? 
No. There is no association between Shell and the Hakluyt Society in connection with our dealings with the Donovans.

3. Alfred Donovan alleges that the judge and counsel in the last litigation against Shell conspired against the Donovans and their company? 
Donovan’s allegation appears to be solely based on the coincidence that the son of a former Shell director was based in the same chambers as Donovan’s counsel at one time. Donovan alleges that the director’s son would have gained access to confidential papers and would have passed these on to his father at Shell. Donovan also alleges that the judge was a party to the conspiracy.

5. Mr. Donovan alleges that suspension of the Tell Shell Forum site is because “Shell no longer wish(es) to hear what shareholders and current/former employees want to say”. Is this the case? 

The Tell Shell Forum was suspended at the end of 2005. We are currently redesigning our forum and plan to be back on-line with regular, business focused discussions in the future.

All of the previous debates have been archived and are available to view. Certain remarks were removed for legal reasons.

The site still retains a ‘contact us’ option – and we listen and respond as best we can to comments and concerns.

19 October 2006 7:26

From:
Sent: Thursdav. October 19.2006 7:26 AM
To:
Subject: RE: SEIC

FYI) I note that the Donovan’s website this morning (Royal Dutch Shell pIc) carries an article in which they claim they received the emails in question from someone inside Shell and passed them to a third party and also to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The MarketWatch report says the emails came from WWF.

Kind regards)

18 December 2006

From:
Sent: 18 December 2006 09:58
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: FYI: Media Monitoring: Alfred Donovan Website

Although we should not be oversensitive re Donovan’s website – his position re Shell is well known, and he would not be regarded as a credible neutral commentator – but he clearly will use anything he can to damage Shell.

Regards

Internet: http://www.shell.com

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 18 December 2006 09:44

To:
Cc:
Subject: FYI: Media Monitoring: Alfred Donovan Website

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx

It is worth noting the additional traffic that the Alfred Donovan website (http://royaldutchshellplc.com) is currently receiving.

I notice that the site has already obtained a copy of the note to staff that xxxxxxx sent out to staff on Friday:

http://royaldutchshell pic.com/

The message board is also receiving a lot of traffic and comments (some of which seem to be made by internal sources).

Observation: the site is attracting more visitors and users (some obviously Shell staff/contractors with access to the Shell system) seem more willing to share information.

Regards

21 February 2007 16:44

——————————————
From:
Sent: 21 February 2007 16:44
To:
Subject: FW: Donovan Response draft – confidential

Sensitivity: Confidential

Greetings – One of the actions from the teleconference today was that I would alert you to the suggestion from Mr Donovan that a UK newspaper might be running a story this weekend based on material from Donovan relating to xxxxxxxxx North Sea safety allegations. Below is xxxxxxxxxx draft proposal re a response statement.

I understand that you have been added to the attendee list for the call on Friday afternoon, which will give you the latest position in advance of the weekend.

Regards

1 March 2007 15:00

SHELL COMMUNICATION

From: .
Sent: 01 March 2007 15:00
To:
Cc: .
Subject: Wikipedia entries for Shell

The subject of Shell’s entry in Wikipedia has come up a couple of times recently. These are important, because they come up on the first page of Google search.

For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal Dutch Shell and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational

The first of these (the main listing) has been managed mainly by xxxxxxxxxx (ex Shell) and John Donovan (anti-Shell). The latter is the work almost exclusively of Donovan. As a result the main entry is reasonably factual (though it does contain lots of negative stuff), and the second entry is almost entirely negative.

Before anyone internally thinks about starting to edit these Shell entries, consider what happened to Microsoft and a Dutch politician when they started to edit their own entries.

«RE: Microsoft’sWiki Error» «RE: Microsoft’sWiki Error»

In short, the guidance is:
“Companies, their agents, or anyone else for that matter, are not supposed to edit Wikipedia entries they have a vested interest in. Doing so undermines the editorial integrity of the product.

“If you want something about your company on Wikipedia changed ….. go to the discussion page attached to the entry. There, you should identify yourself and your affiliation and state your case, along with links to any supporting materials.

“It is then up to the volunteer editors to consider the company’s information and make the requested changes if they deem them valid. If nothing else, the company might get a notation added to the effect that the company has disputed particular facts.”

We need to develop these thoughts into a strategy towards Wikipedia (and other third party sources of information).

I think it would still be OK for Shell people to create an entry on “Snake Wells” for example, as long as it was evenly balanced (there is no entry today). I guess this would be up to the subject matter experts to do.

regards

2 March 2007 16:13 & 18.56 Plus 3 March 18:01

From:
Sent: 02 March 2007.16:13
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia entries for Shell

We need to think this through properly, and it’s too detailed to finalise at the workshop. One of Mr Donovan’s goals is to get us to react – to his website and other communications. Experience shows that if we do, it only gives him publicity and makes things worse.

From:

Sent: 03 March 2007 18:01

To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia entries for Shell

The point would be to make clear to casual visitors that the environmental/reputation site is created by someone (incidentally, how do we know this?) who has along and acrimonious relationship with Shell, and also links to his own RDS plc site. SureIy this kind of negative posting is as much against the spirit of Wikipedia as would be us putting in positive material about ourselves? So any bright ideas welcomed!

Separately, you may be aware that Donovan is currently running a lot of additional new material making various claims about xxxxxxxx

Regards

—–Original Messaqe—–
From:
sent: 02 March 2007 18:56
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia entries for Shell

Agree. Why give him oxygen?

——————————————————————————————————————

2 March 2007 16:51

—–Original Message—–
From: ..
Sent: 02 March 2007 16:51
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia entries for Shell

A consideration for next weeks digital workshop:

Given that Mr Donovan’s website points users towards wikipedia (stating that it is an objective source of information!) – and given that it would seem that we are unable to edit content that we feel is inaccurate – what is the protocol for simply adding a disclaimer to Shell wikipedia related articles that we do not fully agree with.

Along the lines of (but appreciating that it needs refinement!):

Shell respects the rights of Wikipedia users to express their views on this subject. Rather than edit comments that we feel are inaccurate – which may be considered as inappropriate Wikipedia behavior – we suggest that readers of this article also visit the Shell website to enable a balanced opinion to be formed.

We would be keen to hear the outcome of discussions at the workshop.

2 March 2007 17:48

From:
Sent: vrijdag 2 maart 2007 17:48
To:
Cc:
Subject: CONF/DONOVAN

Greetings xxxxx – you may like to be aware that there have been a few passing (and rather illiterate) references to you on the Chatroom part of the Donovan website http://royaldutchshellplc. com/blog/archives which has a longstanding and acrimonious relationship with Shell and is currently carrying a lot of material about xxxxxxxxxx and North Sea safety, including comments about xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxx. This is the subject of daily calls involving senior EPE/EP staff.

Let’s hope this comes to nothing; but should the references to you turn into something more concrete then we will follow up immediately through more formal channels, involving xxxxxxxxxxxxxx copied here.

Best regards

2 March 2007 18:10

—–Original Message—–
From:
To:
CC:
Sent: Fri Mar 02 18:10:00 2007

Subject: Re: CONF/DONOVAN

Thanks for the tip-off .

From my side – Am aware of the Donovan’s. Came across them in my previous role where a) xxxxxxxxx – allied himself with them and b) from the stuff they posted during the xxxxxxxxx litigation – which is still ongoing. They published some quite nasty stuff which we couldn’t respond to even if we wanted to because it was sub-judicae. Xxxxxxx is very much in the know on there xxxxxxx related gripes and can presumeably give you an update.

Xxxxx is fully aware – it came up during our annual face-to-faces.

As usual xxxxxx …………. thanks are due to you – I have zero intention of responding to there postings……..Unless you or advise me otherwise.

Am travelling next week but will look into my messages regularly .. Am in London Shell Centre Tuesday p.m. if you want to chat for a longer time.

Regards,

—–Original Message——
From:
To:
CC:
jent: Sat Mar 03 00:47:58 2007
Subject: CONF/DONOVAN

Greetings xxxx – you may like to be aware that there have been a few passing (and rather iliterate) references to you on the Chatroom part of the Donovan website htttp://royaldutchshellplc.com/blog/ archives, which has a longstanding and acrimonious relationship with Shell and is currently carrying a lot of material about xxxxxxxxxxxxx and North Sea safety, including comments about xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxx

This is the subject of daily calls involving senior EPE/EP staff

Let’s hope this comes to nothing; but should the references to you turn into something more concrete then we will follow up immediately through more formal channels, involving xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx copied here. ..

Best regards

3 March 2007 18:43

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 02 March 2007 19:24
To:
Cc:
Subject: News management Committee – note of meeting

All – please find a brief overview of the key points. Apologies for any omissions or errors, if you see any please email me

• Donovan xxxxxxxxx Donovan threatening new input to website and intimating he has a pet journo ready to write the story. New responses have been prepared 

***************************************************************************

9 March 2007 15.28

From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: 09 March 2007 15:28
To:XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX

Subject: Legally Privileged and Confidential XXXXXXXXX nd Donovan follow up

XXXXXXXXXX

Following the recent activity aroundxxxxxxxxxx nd the Donovans, N/Sea integrity etc., it was agreed that a follow-up on the broader strategy relating particularly to handling the Donovans would be valuable. This is intended to start the process.

As it stands we are on the back foot and our aim shiould be to develop a strategy (or options) that puts us in a more positive and secure position.

Areas to consider (my brain dump – in no particular order):

• Review handling the media – e.g. creation/ratification of one blanket statement as way forward – proactive approach with selected journos.
• XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX
• Qs and As for the AGM – See attached – need to update, but possibly change stance. Would one strong blanket response be more effective than several rebuttals? Should we be more forthright about the site and our views on it? What might happen (leafleting in the past)? .
Strategy to detact XX from the Donovans (in his best interests – and ours). Positive engagement with XX (who and how?) alongside demonstration that we won’t tolerate the Donovans’ approach unchallenged any longer? Way forward.
• Scenarios – see attached first draft from xxxxxxxxx, Are there others? Are we prepared? How do we prepare/respond?
• Blockers and enablers, strengths and weaknesses. Do we fully understand our own position. Are there on-going issues that we need to know about/fix. Ensure we are on solid ground. Are we making the most of what we’ve got.

While this note is going to everyone on the address list I don’t expect everyone to participate.However, participation wilI depend on the areas we finally decide to concentrate on – thus, please let me know if you have areas not covered above that need consideration (or consider that some of the above do not need attention now) and then let me know if you would like to take part in the follow up.

Date – asap – format and location to be confirmed. Clear agenda and deliverables, working event (no presentations except to establish baselines),round table working group. Will need to keep to workable size!

Please respond soonest and I will work to get this off the ground asap.

By copy to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx has suggested that you be included in this note given your experience.

Thanks and regards

(Word doc symbol)

2006 – Q1 – Alfred Donovan.doc

(Word doc symbol)

North Sea Safety Scenarios.do

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

11 March 2007 19:19

From:
Sent: zondag 11 maart 2007 19: 19 
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Legally Privileged and Confidential – xxxxxxxxx and Donovan follow up

Also D will be scrutinising the new Shell History (out on 5 July) and doubtless making all sorts of new allegations based on it. I hope to get a copy in a few weeks.

We had previously hoped that with AD getting older, his interest might wane … but it looks as though JD is just as determined. So we need to revisit our approach. I’d be keen to be a bit more robust – but nevertheless, it is clear that his site doesn’t have a lot of credibility with the responsible media, so is really only nuisance value, and we need to be careful that we don’t give it credibility by seeming to take it seriously ourselves.

Regards

19 March 2007 16:39

———Original Message——–

From:
To:
Sent: Mon Mar 19 16:39:16 2007
Subject: Donovan

From the research, it appears Alfred and John Donovan have been having a beef with Shell for several years. This latest Email to xxxxxxxxxxxxxx is not good if xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx should take this up and go public with it. I have contacted some of my sources in the USG and in London to see if they have anything else on the brothers, but that may take a few days for their response. We will monitor any fallout from this.

I have attached in a word document the various statements and links that identify the brothers and their beef with Shell. I am in San Antonio for the NPRA conference and will be returning to Houston tomorrow and in the office the rest of the week. I will advise you as I obtain more information.

SHELL INTERNAL EMAILS RELATING TO JOHN DONOVAN, BILL O’REILLY AND FOX NEWS: 19 to 22 March 2007 MULTIPLE PAGES

19 March 2007 18.43 20 March 2007 8:10

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: maandag 19 maart 2007 18:43 
To:
Cc:

Subject: RE: FYI: Media monitoring – An e-mail to xxxxxxxxx at Fox News: Shells treachery in Iran

Not sure if it’s the same “John Donovan” who made the post below, but I thought his name rang a bell for some reason. The “John Donovan” described in the link to a wikipedia.org page below has been in pursuit of Shell for quite some time due to a long- standing dispute (in the UK). We should be mindful of this if the possibility moves forward or this particular issue gains traction — given the web presence that Donovan maintains against Shell.

xxxxxxxxxxx, believe we have an issues brief covering the situation with the Donovan brothers, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royaldutchshellplc.com

Centenary Book

Given the Donovans’ continuing close scrutiny of Shell activities (and their appeals for any input from ‘whistle-blowers’), they will doubtless subject the upcoming book to the closest scrutiny, as will xxxxxxxx (in a more balanced way) (both are authors of the Wikipedia entries on Shell).

—–Original Message—–

From: –
sent: Tuesdav. March 20, 2007 8:10 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: FYI: Media monitoring – An e-mail to xxxxxxxxx at Fox News: Shells treachery in Iran

In response to the questions that you raised:

John Donovan is the son of Alfred Donovan (they are ‘self proclaimed joint owners of the “royaldutchShellplc” website which is highly critical of Shell (http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com)

The two have a long-running grudge against Shell (reason identified in the attached issue brief). Most recently they claim to have provided the Russian government with information that was used in discussions around Sakhalin II and they are “championing” a number of issues against Shell (safety standards in Shell, business principles etc).

You are also right that the Donovan’s have contributed quite significantly to a Shell wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell_Environmental_and_reputationaUssues.This is almost entirely negative.

Please note that Corporate Affairs is aware of the entries – and that no amendments should be made (our response / approach is being considered).

I attach the last issue brief that was produced for Mr Donovan – this will be updated for the upcoming AGM to reflect the recent up-serge in his activities.

I would like to request that you keep myself and updated should this issue escalate – and that any comment re: accusations made by the Donovan’s is first approved centrally.

Regards

« File: 2006 – 01 – Alfred Donovan.doc (Compressed) »

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 20 March 2007 17:27
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: FYI: Media monitoring – An e-mail to xxxxxxxxxxx at Fox News: Shells treachery in Iran
Importance: High

xxxxxxxxxxxxx has asked that I develop a brief, straightforward fact sheet for external use on the Donovan issue that we could provide if the show contacted us– and if this blows up into a larger issue.

Please review the attached one-pager for external use. Also, if there is any recent activity, please provide.

Thanks for your help on this.

20 March 2007 4:08AM

From:

Sent: Tuesday March 20, 2007 4:08 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: FYI: Media monitoring – An e-mail to xxxxxxxxx at Fox News: Shells treachery in Iran 

sent below this morning

—–Original Messaqe—–
From:
Sent: 20 March 2007 08:25
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: FYI: Media monitoring – An e-mail to xxxxxxx at Fox News: Shells treachery in Iran

John and Alfred Donovan well known in UK / Hague. They perceive Shell played them and so have made it their mission to embarrass, belittle and criticize Shell, which they do quite well. Their website, royaldutchsellplc.com is an excellent source of group news and comment and I recommend it far above what our own group internal comms puts out.

They are of no security interest, unless somebody wants to set an information security tasking to discover where exactly in Shell their (good) sources are located.

The Wikipedia link (below) provides good background on them, nothing worth adding to that.

Only angle of interest is what reaction this email will have to US public and that is not something I am well placed to comment on.

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 19 March 2007 20:06
To:
Cc:
Subject: Fw: FYI: Media monitoring – An e-mail to xxxxxxxxx at Fox News: Shells treachery in Iran

See what you can find out on John Donovan. Read the info below and advise on any potential threat issues if this goes public.

Xxxxx, please note for 50 city tour.

****************************************************************************************

21 March 2007 10:02 AM

From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:02 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Donavan CONFIDENTIAL 

Sensitivity: Confidential

Spoke with xxxxxxxx in a follow up on the Donovan matter. Not for publication, is the fact that the Group has a long history with this guy and suspects employees (current and former) are communicating with him. In attempts to monitor this, xxxxxxxx has initiated and IT project to monitor internal e-mails from Shell servers globally to Donovan and is also monitoring web traffic to determine internal traffic to their website. There is history of several former employees taking internal laundry to Donovan also, internal e-mails have appeared on his website.

22 March 2007 8:27 AM

From:
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:27 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Donovan – email to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We have been advised to use the following statement only in the event that we are contacted. The policy with regard to Donovan is to not add fuel to the fire. The response has been phrased to distance the US as much as possible from what is essentially a dispute originating in the UK.

Alfred and John Donovan
Our colleagues in Shell International tell us that they are very familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are long-standing critics of Shell as a result of a business dispute in the UK dating back many years. Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr. Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects. Although Shell International disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so in this case.

22 March 2007 12:42

From:
Sent: 22 March 2007 12:42
To:
Subject: RE:: News Management Grid

Hi – some input from us:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

– Updating our Issues Briefs for 01 results/AGM – including the one about the Donovans, who are currently trying to interest a US news channel in Shell’s planned activities in Iran.

(also the Donovan website http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/03/21/shellnewsnet-aborted-sunday-times- article-claiming-this-website-cost-shell-22-billion/ now claiming that we managed to get a critical Sunday Times article about Shell suppressed ….

“However, to our great disappointment there was no article in the Sunday Times the following day.

On the Tuesday, I received an email from the journalist saying it had been “pushed out” by the bird flu outbreak in Sufflok, but he promised to lobby for its inclusioµ on Sunday, 4 February. Naturally we speculated whether the influence of Shell had played some part in the cancelling of the story. We had reason to wonder what had happened because another article on the same subject, but by a different journalist, scheduled to appear in a prestigious global magazine, was also scrapped at the last minute. In that case we were informed on a confidential basis that publication had been aborted because someone at the top of the magazine has a connection with Shell.

We thought no more of it until last weekend when a major “advertising feature” was published in The Sunday Times focused on the “partnership” between Ferrari and Shell (see link below). Naturally we are now suspicious that the pending advertising feature was perhaps the real reason for the last minute scrapping of a negative news story about Shell which contained an important revelation about Shell’s Sakhalin surrender.”

Regards

22 March 2007 16:08

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 22 March 2007 15:44
To:
Cc:
Subject: FYI Media Monitoring: Barbados

I noticed this on the Donovan site. It is in response to CJ request for individuals to contact the site if they have grounds
for a law suit against Shell (Not sure who xxxxxxxx is – I googled him and he seems to be related to Barbados – but I couldn’t find anything specific).

Interesting to see if this is another issue Mr Donovan tries to promote.

Do you have grounds for a lawsuit against Shell? Have you, your firm or family been cheated or injured by Shell?

<http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007 /02/09/ do-you- have-grounds- for-a-lawsuit -against-shell-have- you- your-
firm -or- family-been-cheated -or-injured -by-shell/>

March 21st, 2007 23:45
For 13 years now Southern Farmers a group of Black farmers in the great island of Barbados in the West Indies have been fighting SHELL ANTILLES LTD, a subsidiary of Shell Petroleum over an underground leak which has contaminated a 186 acres of our glorious island, including our water irrigation not to mention our soil which is prime agricultural land.

No doubt people have died of cancer within this promixity after eating contaminated fruit and veg. Inconclusive research shows a high propensity for cancerous diseases in the area and in the general island.

Over 30 farmers continue to lobby for financial compensation but we need international help to fight this Leviathan.

Please, if you can offer precious resources in the form of information, legal or any othe.r help we are willing to pay for any assistance on completion of this matter whether through open litigation or out- of-court financial settlement.

After 13 years, we are asking for a settlement to the tune of $500 million USD from SHELL …

Please help us!!!

Terence M. Blackett

From: 22 March 200716:08
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: FYI Media Monitoring: Barbados

Thanks, well spotted – this is the aviation spill as included in the recent ‘Use your profit to clean up your mess’. So at least it’s not a ‘new’ issue; nevertheless, Donovan may well latch onto it. Please keep a watch out for developments.

The $500 million claim will probably appear in the more specific list of demands we expect at theAGM.

Thanks

23 March 2007 4 Pages

From:
Sent: 23 March 2007 09:30
To:
Subject: RE: CONF: GLOBAL ISSUES UPDATE

As an aside: re the Malaysia court case: Shell won – in the Judges own words “completely”. But doubtless Donovan will find some grounds to criticise.

North Sea/Donovan

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. We will work with EP ex on the wider Donovan aspects, including updating the Issues brief. However, Donovan continues ,very active: recent initiatives include alerting Fox News in the US to Shell’s plans in Iran; flagging the upcoming legal announcement relating to the court case on Shell Malaysia pensioners (the ‘Team A’ case); and claiming Shell influence because the Sunday Times did not run a promised article critical of Shell. He has also been contacted by the group of farmers claiming compensation from Shell for the Barbados aviation pipeline spill.

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 05 March 2007 07:25 
To:

Centenary Book
Given the Donovans’ continuing close scrutiny of Shell activities (and their appeals for any input from ‘whistle- blowers’), they will doubtless subject the upcoming book to the closest scrutiny, as will (in a more balanced way) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (both are authors of the Wikipedia entries on Shell).

10 April 2007 14:59

—-Original Message—–
From:

Sent: 10 April 2007 14:24
To:
Subject: Donovan Brief

I’ve received input from Malaysia and updated the Donovan issue brief. Are you the focal point for approval?

Alfred Donovan.doc
(Compressed …

Outstanding:
I have asked Malaysia for clarity on the below accusation made on the Donovan site:

Eight Royal Dutch Shell companies currently have an application before the High Court demanding that my father (Alfred), who will be 90 years old in a few weeks and resides in the UK, must travel to Malaysia to be cross examined in respect of a defamation action relating to our websites.

Question:
Do we want to script specific responses to questions that the Donovan’s may raise if they attend the AGM i.e.

• What is your response to My (Donovan) claim that we have received confidential information from Shell insiders that we are prepared to use against Shell?
• What is your response that claims made on our website are slanderous to Shell. Why don’t you take us to court?
• We offer Shell the opportunity to comment on stories before they are released but they do not accept. Why is this?

My view is that we should stick with the two key messages – but I would be happy to draft responses to specific questions that we might receive if you felt that this would be of use.

• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are long-standing critics of Shell.

• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovan’s base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovan’s and will continue to do so in this case.

From:
Sent: 10 April 2007 14:59
To:
Subject: FW: Donovan Brief

Thanks – a few comments:

(1) It needs clearer structure.

(2) Agree we should have a brief for the AGM, but it needs to be much shorter – say one page.

(3) Agree we should get a clearer response re Alfred D and the defamation claim.

(4) Did you get anything from xxxxxx – he was doing some work on the wider D relationship.

Cheers

6 June 2007 12:51

From:
Sent: 06 June 2007 12:51
To:
Subject: FW: Online Issue Management – Group Strategy

Hi xxxxx – by coincidence, see xxxxxx note below.

Xxxx – see xxxxx email to me (attached) from this morning. Our advice has been that any attempt by Shell to edit wik sites about ourselves would result in high-profile criticism of our ‘censorship’. However, this is premised on wiki contributors presenting facts, rather than (as per Donovan) openly and admittedly promoting hostile and one-sided views.

We can expect another broadside from Donovan when our History book comes out

Regards

RE: Donovan –
Financial times

24 June 2007 15:05

—–Original Messaqe—–
From:
Sent: 24 June 2007 15:05
To:
Subject: Donovan slte

Not sure if you are aware of this – but according to the Donovan site Shell lawyers have been in contact with the Donovans re: closing the site down? Sure to generate some self-publicity if true.

In the live-chat area:

Royal Dutch Shell : As could be anticipated, Shell lawyers have been in action in their typically underhand way trying to have this website closed down. Their sneaky move came out of the blue last night. Was it something we said? We should have known better than to expect a direct confrontation. More information will follow on Monday. Suffice it to say that Shell will not succeed.

25 June 2007 13:49 & 13:57

—–Original Messaqe—–
From:
sent: 25 June 2007 13:49
To:
Subject: RE: DONOVAN- WEBSITE

xxxxxxx nothing to add over and above our discussion this morning.

I support Mr Donovan’s right to free speech – even if it is anti-Shell. That does not extend to IP infringement or defamation. However, even if we have a good chance of winning litigation, it probably is not worth it.

regards

From:
Sent: 25 June 2007 13:57
To:
Subject: RE: DONOVAN – WEBSITE

FYI, xxxxxs latest contribution – I think he should choose his friends more carefully….

In the absence of “Tell Shell” I think that this is possibly the best forum for those of us who care about Shell and have informed opinions about the company to share with others. The Donovans perfume (subsequently corrected!) a very useful function and, whilst I don’t always agree with them, I do admire them and certainly do not question their motives or their integrity.

25 June 2007 15:25

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 25 June 2007 15:02
To:
Subject: FW: Alleged corruption lnvolving
Importance: High

Can we discuss quickly. Are you happy with this?

FOR EASE OF REFERENCE i PASTE BELOW THE ALLEGATIONS TO WHICH THIS NOTE RESPONDS:

Dear Mr Ruddock

New allegations relating to SEIC senior management

We are in correspondence with a contractor on Sakhalin Island who has made serious allegations concerning alleged “corrupt practices of Sakhalin Energy and Mr Craig specially as they try to steal diesel supply contracts away from the good and honest Sakhtransbunker and give it to Sakhalin Oil Company without any type of tendering exercise at all only to fill the bank accounts of Dmitry Goncharenko and Ian Craig”.

He is referring to Mr Ian Craig, the Chief Executive of SEIC and Dmitry Goncharenko who works in Sakhalin Oblast Administration, who he alleges is “a puppet of Malakhov and Pinchevsky”.

The contractor claims that the Sakhalin Prosecutor is already filing a case against Craig and Goncharenko about the “illegal stealing of work from Sakhtransbunker.” He says that although this development is known to people on Sakhalin Island, he wants Shell shareholders and Gazprom to be made aware of this alleged situation.

The contractor goes on to say: “If this is not worry enough, you also need to know that Sakhalin Energy in their continued stupidity have given all the responsibility for environmental cleansing from diesel spills from oil and gas tankers in the Aniva Bay ocean water also to Goncharenko and Sakhalin Oil Company – again with no tender exercise! None of these people know anything about this work and have no equipment. This is not good enough for the people of Sakhalin and will not protect our lovely beaches and fishes – only fill bank accounts of Concharenko and Craig largely”.

As you are aware, it is our routine practise to give Shell the opportunity to respond when allegations are made. We realise that it must be a sensitive time at SEIC in view of recent events, with the Russian government already ridiculing SEIC management.

We would therefore welcome a categorical denial of the allegations including the claimed involvement of the Sakhalin Prosecutor before considering publishing the allegations and or passing on the correspondence to media contacts.

From:
Sent: 25 June 2007 15·25
To:
Subject: RE: Alleged corruption involving

I’m happy enough, but we might consider a blanket response to all Donovan requestes that reads along the lines:

‘It is our policy not to respond in public to anonymous allegations. If such allegations are brought to the notice of Shell through the proper channels they will be thoroughly investigated.’

If we use this every time we get one of these he’ll stop trying in the end.

26 June 2007 07:58

From:
Sent: 26 June 2007 07:58
To:
Subject: FW: Legally Privileged and Confidential: Sakhalin

You should be aware a new allegation against xxxxxxxx through Donovan. We plan a terse response so that we do not have to respond to every wild and anonymous accusation that might come through to us.

2 July 2007 14:43

From:
Sent: 02 July 2007 14:43
To:
Subject: BULLETS

– Global Issues bullets as usual.

New challenge from xxxxxxx re North Sea satety – xxxxxxxxxxxx coordinating activity, EP ex fully
involved. No doubt Donovan will take up the challenge on his website, adding to current allegations about Sakhalin Energy.

9 July 2007 20:24

From:
Sent: 09 July 2007 20:24
To:
Subject: RE: Email to Keith Ruddock

I prefer to just ignore. This is fairly consistent with our earlier approach until the xxxxxxx stuff emerged which we felt we needed to be a bit more proactive about.

—–Original Message—–
From:
sent: 09 July 2007 09:58
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Email to Keith Ruddock
Importance: High

I assume that the line is we don’t respond to Donovan but if we do:

Option 1: Do nothing and Donovan carry on his campaign

Option 2: respond saying

Option 3: respond saying

Xxxxxx – who is standing in for xxxxxx while away. Also views as to above? Option 2 fits with what we have said before I feel.

CONFIDENTIALITY. The information contained in this transmission is intended exclusively for the proper use by the intended addressees and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any views expressed in this transmission are those of the individual sender, except where the transmission states otherwise and the sender being authorised appropriately. Any review, dissemination and other use of this information, as well as any action in reliance upon this information by persons and/or entities other than the intended addressees is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please note that no confidentiality or priVilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission. You are requested to
inform the sender and/or addressee immediately and permanently delete and/or destroy the material.

—–Original Message—–
From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:39 PM
To: Niven, Jim R SEIC-C-EA

Cc: van der Veer, Jeroen J RDS-CEJV; Ollila, Jorma RDS-RDS/CH; Brinded, Malcolm A RDS-ECMB; Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC
Subject: Email to Keith Ruddock

Hello Mr Niven

You will have already received a copy of my email to Mr. Ruddock sent earlier this morning (printed below).

I have received an automated response advising that he is on leave.

Under the circumstances I would be grateful if you would deal with this matter and respond on behalf ofthe named individuals “Craig, Ruddock and Finlayson” by close of business today if you wish to do so.

Regards
John Donovan

THE EMAIL

Dear Mr. Ruddock

The following comment was posted on our www.royaldutchshellplc.com website on Saturday by “JimMCGuire”. This may be a false name.

“I can confirm the views of Simon and Lucio. I was kicked out of SEIC and have since been the victim of uninterrupted personal threats and attacks by Craig, Ruddock and Finlayson’s police in an attempt to silence me from telling you the whole truth about Sakhalin 2 budget and schedule. It is only the fear of losing my freedom and livelihood that prevents me from telling you more”.

As you will be aware, we have received a number of leaks from Sakhalin-2 insiders, not all of whom have given us their true names. Nonetheless, in general terms the information received has proven to be correct. Even in the case of the person who used the name of David Greer, it transpired that the leaked internal email later supplied was 100% authentic.

Since you are personally named in this latest posting, it seems only fair to invite your response. If you are able to categorically state that the allegations are unfounded and that you have had no involvement in trying to prevent information reaching us concerning the Sakhalin-2 project, we will delete the comment.

If there is no denial or no response to this email, then we will use the information in an article being prepared for (external publication as well as publication on our own website. As usual you are in any event be very welcome to see the draft article before publication and we would publish unedited any rebuttal you wished to supply.

In case you are unaware of the “views of Simon and Lucio”, the posting was as follows: –

July 1st, 2007 10:43

Now, at last, the realest truth is coming out. Bring back Marshall Greer and his coleague Troost now. Without them, Sak Energy and the Ph II Project has lost its spine, guts, muscle and will to deliver.

As a result, the proj schedule and (US$20 billion) budget will be blown sky high for sure. Mark our words, Masters Donovans, soon the real cost and schedule of Sakhalin 2 will be revealed and all hell will break loose soon. You and Gazprom and Shell will be shocked.

We are all doomed on Sakhalin under Craig’s and Visser’s school boy” leadership”.

What a horror movie this is for the few good peoples left here on island.

Lots of poeple are about to leave this Comapny and more will leave this Company soon for sure as long as present” leaders” prevail.

Us included.

Simon and Lucio the Wolf

If there is no response by close of business today, I will assume that you will not be responding.

Regards
John Donovan

11 July 2007 14:47

—–Original Message—–
From:
To:
CC:
Sent: Wed Jul 11 14:47:10 2007 
Subject: Donovan subject access request – Q&As?

xxx – Tried calling you, and asked to discuss this with you.
I found out from UK Legal that this weekend the Donovans will be provided with two fairly large binders with correspondence, which we were obliged to provide under the Data Protection Act. 

16 July 2007 16:04

From:
Sent: 16 July 200716:04
To:
Subject: Bullets

Usual Global Issues input:

Donovans: they are continuing to use/trail some of the material they have obtained from Shell under their Data Protection Act request.

24 July 2007 09:57

From:
Sent: 24 July 2007 09:57
To:
Cc:

Subject: Info: possible leafleting of Hague offices

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx – we understand that the Donovans (who you will know of xxxxx’ are planning the distribution of leaflets outside (probably) C16. It is likely that the leaflets will focus on allegations by xxxxxxxxxxx with regard to North Sea Safety. No idea on timing, but likely to be shortly. we are working up materials: staff note; stakeholder/media response. Happy to chat through, call/mail if you have concerns. Otherwise will revert shortly with materials.

SUNDAY 29 July 2007 11:31 & 30 July 2007 8:19 AM

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Sunday. July 29.2007 11:31 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Wikipedia & Shell

Hi

I don’t know if you have seen this, but Wikipedia does allow the ‘truth’ to be provided – in other words, we can provide our facts if we think it worthwhile arguing any of what’s said here.

Regards,

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2007 8:19 AM

To:
Subject: Wikipedia & Shell

I know that we are very locally focused but I also try to stay abreast of our global interests as well (mainly by reviewing internal documentation). I was surprised to find the following story on wikipedia? No doubt the issue manager in Den Haag has seen this but for our knowledge worth noting its existence and content

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell>

30 July 2007 22:38 & 7 August 2007 14.24

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 30 July 2007 22:38
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Wikipedia & Shell

Not sure if your team is aware of the below link on Wikipedia that features quite prominently so called controversies in past and existing Shell operations/business. I won’t be surprised if this link get quite a few hits when web users, such as students or even investors are seeking info on Shell.

Regards

From:
Sent: 07 Auqust 200714:24 
To:
Subject: RE: Wikipedia & Shell

Thanks xxxxx – this is largely produced by our long-standing critic, John Donovan ..we, and the lawyers have been pondering for a long time what we can do about this without just drawing more attention to his efforts ….

Best regards

31 July 2007 10:47

From:
Sent: 31 July 200710:47
To:
Subject: Shell Centre Protest

I understand that Mr Donovan (a frequent anti-Shell protestor) intends distributing leaflets outside Shell Centre in the next few days or so. He and his helpers are never any trouble, but I wondered if you would like some warning of when to expect them. If so, I will email him.

Regards

8 August 2007 05:39 & 9 August 2007

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 08 August 2007 05:39
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: xxxxxxxx Case in Donovan’s website

Tks

Your advice on what I should do?

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11.35 AM
To:
Cc:

Subject: . Case in Donovan’s website

Dear All,
Plse below an article in Donovan’s webpage re xxxxxxxxxxx case – in case you’ve not sighted it earlier.

Email to,
By Royal Dutch Shell Plc.com
In June 2004 my son John and I published articles on the website relating to Shell Malaysia
and its xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxg. Eight Shell companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group, five registered in Malaysia, …
Royal Dutch Shell plc .com – http://royaldutchshellplc.com

Regards

Sent: 09 August 2007 06:14
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: xxxxxxxxxxxx Case in Donovan’s website

Xxxxxx took the decision to respond and asked me for input. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx were in the loop.

Reading this new “email publication”, I do not see any benefit in responding further. He is clearly trying to enlarge the issue and keep it alive.

Rgds

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Wednesday, 8 August 2007 2:57 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: xxxxxxxxxxxxx Case in Donovan’s website

Hi xxxxxx. My first reaction was to ignore the letter but in case my assumption was wrong, I thought I will sought advice. I agree with you and will not respond.

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:40 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: xxxxxxx Case in Donovan’s website

Greetings xxxxxxxxx and gentlemen –

Our experience with the Donovans on a number of topics (most recently Sakhalin and North Sea safety) is that any correspondence or actions on our part merely spur them to further questions/statements/actions which they then publicise on their website.

Best is to continue to keep a watching brief (indeed thanks to xxxxxxx for spotting this) but not to respond – if you really feel you need to do so, please check first via xxxxxxxxxxxxx who keeps an overview of the Donovans activities.

Please also keep us in touch with developments in the xxxxx case, as these will inevitably be publicised on the Donovans’ website.

Thanks and best regards

23 August 2007 10:10 Pennzoil

—–Original Messar”‘—–
From:
Sent: 23 August 2007 19:16
To:
Cc:
Subject: ACTION: FYI: Donovan allegations

Further to the posting of allegations relating to Pennzoil and The Grease Spot Inc on the website:
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/22/shellnewsnet-usa-consumer-fraud-involving-pennzoil-and-shell-oil-products/
the following communications strategy has been agreed:

1. In accordance with Group communications strategy, we will not respond directly to Messrs Donovan
2. Communication to questions on this subject from franchisees, media and other interested stakeholders will be on a reactive basis onlyusing the following statement:

• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so.
• Shell’s relationship with The Grease Spot ended in May 2007.

3. Will arrange monitoring of media (especially The Chicago Times and The Chicago Sun-Times – in online chat on his website Donovan claims to have provided the story to them)

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 24 August 2007 11:54
To:
Cc:
Subject: ACTION: FY1: Donovan allegations – updated statement

Further to yesterday’s email, the statement has been modified – please see below.

• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so.
• Currently, Shell is not selling products to the Grease Spot and the locations no longer (prominently) display (external) Pennzoil signage.

From:
Sent: woensdag 29 augustus 2007 10: 10
To:
Subject: FW: ACTION: FYI Donovan allegations – updated statement

Xxxxx re your call – email below gives an idea of status, plus will also send you xxxxxxxxx update. Sorry, thought you would have been involved from the US side of things, as that is the root of the issue – Donovan is merely the conduit – he seizes on anything that he thinks is a bad story for Shell and gives it publicity. Most people recognise that he has such a one-sided perspective that his criticism is not a story in itself – what matters is what the facts are on the ground.

Best regards

28 August 2007 17:38 Pennzoil

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 28 Auqust 2007 15:25
To:
Subject: Group IMF discussion

Xxxxxx – FYI we have received further allegations from Mr Donovan regarding lubes in the US. While the issues team is mainly US based, xxxxxxxx will be signing off any materials with xxxxxxxxx I’d appreciate any views you have on ‘weathering’ the attention of Mr Donovan. Will keep you in the loop. 

Best wishes

From:
Sent: 28 August 2007 17:38
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Group IMF discussion

Thanks xxxxxxxx – I mentioned Mr D’s interest in lubricants on your behalf in the IMF call.

On ‘weathering’ the situation: exactly so – best thing is for us to keep our heads down, not be drawn into responding to D’s allegations (which would play into his hands) or making public statements on it. Unless there is a significant takeup by US media, NGO or lawyers on behalf of customers, Donovan will sooner rather than later turn his attention to other existing (eg North Sea safety etc) or new issues. However, he won’t forget about it – he is always looking for linkages so he can present these as supposedly reflecting a pattern of improper behaviour, rather than being isolated (and usually inaccurate, misinterpreted or exaggerated) incidents.

The US is a new ‘market’ for him. I understand that Alfred D lives in the US, but the website and background is very much UK. No doubt he would love to get more attention in the US – interestingly, the blog monitoring we do in the US does give his site a lot of attention. You might like to get yourself

RE: Shell Monthly
. . Online Repor …

on the distribution list xxxxxxxxxxxxx organises this) – see attached email?

regards

31 August 2007 16:17

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject: RE: CONF: D’S
thanks:
vrijdag 31 augustus 200716:17

thanks xxxxxxx all really helpful.

—–Original Message—–
From: ,
Sent: 31 August 2007 l5:l3
To: .
Subject: CONF:D’S
Importance: High

As discussed:

We should not give the impression that we are over-concerned with the D’s website, or that management spends a lot of time worrying about it. It is a nuisance, but any impartial reader would rapidly come to the conclusion that as a self-confessed ‘gripe site’ it is only interested in material that supports its own perspective. Hope the following helps.

regards

CONTEXT 
Alfred D and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website <http://royaldutchshellplc.com>thatiscriticaloftheSheIiGroup. ln 2006 the Ds re-launched their website
– providing daily news feeds of Shell-related stories and a live chat forum. They stated that they ‘wanted it to become a magnet for people who had a problem with the company’.

KEY MESSAGES (on the record) 
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John D, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Ds base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Ds and will continue to do so.
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr. D’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Ds continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND 
John D and his father, Alfred, ran a business, Don Marketing, which specialised in the creation of promotions. Mr D brought the “Make Money” promotion to the UK and Shell UK Limited (Shell) paid him for its use. Shell also paid for the rights to use several other Don Marketing promotions.

In the early ’90s when Shell wanted to use Make Money again, Mr D claimed that he still owned the concept. Shell paid D for the transfer of the concept.

Mr D then launched legal action against Shell in connection with two other promotions. While Shell was confident of defeating the claim, in the interest of saving costs for both sides, it was agreed that the matter would be settled.

Following this settlement, Mr D sued Shell again. He claimed that he had invented the Smart promotion and that Shell had “stolen” it from him. The case went to court but Mr D eventually abandoned his claim

Despite the settlement of the legal actions Alfred D has continued to campaign against Shell from time to time.

Domain Name registration
Prior to the public announcement of [the unification], Shell secured the domain name www.royaldutchshell.com <http://www.royaldutchshell.com> and similar names in almost every country. Following the announcement, Mr. D also registered a number of domain names including www.royaldutchshellplc.com <http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com> Shell filed an administrative complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation requesting the transfer of the names to Shell, but the adjudication panel did not accept that there were grounds for the transfer. There is no appeal from that decision, and although there may be scope for a separate legal challenge through the courts, Shell did not consider that such action was justified in this case.

Wikepedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royaldutchshellplc.com this is essentially the work of the Ds, as is the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

http://royaldutchshellpic.com/ 
The Daily Mail might like to make its own judgement based on the standard of contributions to the ‘LiveChat’ section of the site.

The Daily Mail might also like to ponder on the 11/08/2007 item on the homepage, 90 YR OLD WEBSITE WARRIOR COSTS SHELL BILLIONS 
<http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007 /08/11/blogger-news-network-90-yr-old-website-warrior-costs-royal-dutch-shell- billions/> 
“A 90 year old war veteran, Alfred D——-, created a gripe website focused on Shell which, in an extraordinary alliance with the so-called “Kremlin attack dog” Oleg Mitvol, has cost the oil giant billions dollars and as a by-product, changed the course of history.

Current/past issues briefs attached.

« File: 2006 – 01 – Alfred Donovan.doc» «File: 2007 – 02 – Donovan Campaign Against Shell.doc »

31August 2007 17:44 Pennzoil

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 31 August 2007 17:32
To:
Cc:
Subject: Donovan issue update
All:

Wanted to provide a quick update to what has been going on with the Lubricants Donovan issue this week.

We have assembled an issues team that has had daily telecons so everyone stays updated. At this point, things have been fairly quiet. No media have picked up the story Donovan put on his website. One blog (Bloggers News Network) copied the story verbatim and ran on their site. That has been the only pick up so far. We continue to monitor.

Our holding statement was shared with customer-facing employees as well as other ex members in US to ensure we could response should the media call us about this. So far, all has been quiet.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Donovan has stated on his website that he intends to run 2 more articles in an attempt to further discredit Shell. The one article is with regard to a wiper blade third-party vendor that we had product quality issues with, and have since ended our relationship with them. We don’t know what the second article is yet. Anyway, we anticipate that he might post the second article within the next few days. We continue to monitor his website.

We have assigned one of our attorneys to monitor, and have given instructions to other employees not to visit the site.

We will continue to hold meetings regularly with regard to the issue and to monitor the market for any possible pick up. Again, and thankfully, all has been quiet so far. We hope it remains that way. I will provide another update late next week.

From:
Sent: 31 August 200717:44
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: FYI, Lubricants D****** issue update

Xxxxxx – FYI, see below for update on the US Lubes issue that the above raised – essentially quiet. Supports our belief that doing nothing publicly is the best way of responding; whereas any Shell response would be likely to give D credibility and trigger interest by eg the media. US Downstream are running this, linked to the Lubes COB in Shell Centre. 

Copying xxx so he is aware of this, but don’t propose to circulate more widely.

Regards

6 September 2007 15:54 Pennzoil

—–Original Message—-
From:
Sent: 06 September 2007 15:54
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Donovan issue update

All:

Due to the lack of activities around this issue (no media pick up, no additional articles so far, no real concern or inquiry from customers, etc.),
In the meantime, our legal counsel continues to monitor the website for any potential updates/new articles that Donovan could post. If anything changes, we will let you know.

????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????

Internet: http://www.shell.com

From:
Sent: 06 September 200716:05
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Donovan issue update

Thanks – good news!

Best regards

9 September 2007 19:32

——Original Message—–
From:
To: .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Sun Sep 09 10:35:05 2007
Subject: Re: Daily Telegraph – North Sea Safety

There is a piece in today’s Sunday Telegraph about Donovan and safety. At this stage I just have a summary but I am trying to get an e version to mail around.

The Sunday Telegraph, 09/09/2007, P.5,
The writer reports on how the internet has launched the phenomenon of online activism. Shell discovered the power of online campaigners when it tried, and failed, to claim ownership of the domain name Royaldutchshell.com, a website belonging to Alfred Donovan and his son John. They owned a chain of petrol stations in London and Essex and created sales promotions for Shell, before falling out with the company and putting their grievances on the web. The site has become a home for activists and
former employees and has been used to mobilise support for environmental campaigns by groups such as the WWF, against drilling in the Arctic and Russia, groups concerned over Shells social impact in Ireland and Nigeria, and by former Shell auditor xxxxxxxx, who has raised questions over employee safety./

Sent: Sat Sep 08 08:45:27 2007
Subject: Re: Daily Telegraph – North Sea Safety

Please see the story below. I feel it might be worth discussing with Group Media how well briefed London journalists are on these issues. I will talk to about this.

Pressure on Shell over safety of platforms
By Russell Hotten, Industry Editor
~ast Updated: 3:05am BST 08/09/2007

Picture of offshore installation with caption:
Shell will be unhappy that its standards and procedures are being questioned

Royal Dutch Shell is facing a growing campaign about alleged poor safety on several North Sea oil platforms, with Britain’s biggest trade union and a former executive of the company calling on MPs and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to investigate.

Unite, formed from the merger of the TGWU transport union and Amicus, accuses Shell of neglecting safety on platforms it has recently put up for sale and has warned that a deterioration in relations between the company and staff is putting workers at risk.

Meanwhile, Bill Campbell, former group auditor of Shell International who has highlighted safety at the company for years, has now written to every MP and member of the House of Lords claiming to have evidence t:hat the company has ignored problems.

Unite said in a statement: “Many platform areas are now not fully covered by trained and competent people and certain HSE safety-critical roles are not fully supported. The gaps in these safety-critical positions could be so severe that, in the event of an emergency, staff may be unable to cope.”

advertisementSeveral Shell platforms – Cormorant Alpha, Dunlin Alpha, Tern, Eider and North Cormorant – are being sold as the company scales back activities in the North Sea, where finding and extracting oil and gas is becoming increasingly more expensive.

Shell denies strongly that it has ever compromised on safety and says that managers on the platforms have not complained of a lack of staff in safety-critical functions. However, safety is an emotive issue and Shell will be unhappy that its standards and procedures are being questioned. Nor will the union’s plan to intensify its campaign help the company find buyers for the platforms.

A spokesman for Shell said yesterday: “We are aware that this [sale of the platforms] is an unsettling time for staff. Safety is our first priority and foremost on the agenda at all the affected platforms. We have asked personnel to raise any concerns personally with senior management so that we can understand and fully address them.”

In a separate campaign, Mr Campbell wrote to MPs at the end of July saying that Shell is putting “lives at stake.” He claimed to have a”vast amount of evidence” that Shell has failed to tackle health and safety concerns, but did not spell out the details in the letter.

Mr Campbell, who has teamed up with a website that has been highly critical of Shell, appears to be of increasing concern to the company. A recent internal email admits that the website has thrown Shell “on the back foot”. The company declined to discuss Mr Campbell but said that if anyone raised a safety issue “we take it seriously and look at it”.

26 September 2007 07:26

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 26 September 2007 07:26
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: INFO: Judicial corruption crisis slurs Shell

Thanks for spotting the story.

This kind of story relating to xxxxx case does pop up form time to time. It popped up recently and we
referred to xxxxxxxxx and below was xxxxx steer:

“Our experience with the Donovans on a number of topics (most recently Sakhalin and North Sea safety) is that any correspondence or actions on our part merely spur them to further uestions/statements/actions which they then publicise on their website.

Best is to continue to keep a watching brief but not to respond – if you really feel you need to do so, please check first via xxxxxxxxxxxxx who keeps an overview of the Donovans activities.

Please also keep us in touch with developments in the XXXXXXXX case, as these will inevitably be publicised on the Donovans’ website.”

Xxxxxxxxx adhered to xxxxxxx steer above and, good news, nothing happened.

Please route any queries on this case to us and we will decide if we need to reply.

From: woensdag 26 september 2007 8:06
Sent:
To:
Subject: RE: INFO: Judicial corruption Crisis slurs Shell

Thanks xxxxxx and best regards!

5 October 2007 8:15

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject: Re: donovan’s e-mail regarding xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Note Donovan’s reference to multiple internal sources.

8 October 2007 1:37

From:
Sent: Monday, October 08.2007 1:37 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: donovan

John Donovan wrote an e-mail on 8/10.11.16 hrs, saying that regarding the announcement of the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the information reached him” … from a number of insider sources …. “.

I have not forwarded his e-mail because I don’t know whether he has a tracker.

Over to you.

12 October 2007 15:21 & 15:58

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 12 October 2007 15:58
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Shell Wikipedia

FYI – interesting – any background on this? Should we get involved in the debate? Certainly this should be in our corporate capacity. If so, we might say eg

“This site has been developed and largely updated by the proprietors of the RoyalDutchShellplc website, a self-styled ‘gripe site’ that is dedicated to criticism of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, with which it has no connection. As such, the Wikipedia entry is biased, and we do not believe that it is consistent with the objectives of Wikipedia, ie to provide a factual and balanced source of information to web users.”

Doubtless the Donovans would interpret this as indicating that we were involved in some underhand conspiracy to prevent him from expressing his views ….

—–Original Message—–

From:
Sent: 12 October 2007 15:21
To:
Subject: Shell Wikipedia

It seems that the page Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell</wiki/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell> on Wikipedia may be deleted.

Not sure how or why – but it seems that there is a period of “discussion” to see if users think the article is appropriate.

See links below:

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy
</wikilWikipedia:Deletion policy></wiki/Template:Afd>
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article’s entry
</wikilWikipedia:Articies for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell> on the
Articles for deletion </wiki/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion> page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion </wiki/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

15 October 2007 09:59

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 15 October 2007 09:59
To:
Subject: RDSplc website

L&G – ref our discussion at the IMF – John Donovan was interviewed on Radio Essex late last week – below is the unofficial transcript on their website.

Interestingly, the ‘Live chat’ line on their site has been getting very little traffic recently.

Regards

Thursday 11 October 2007
Unofficial transcript: BBC Radio Essex presenter Etholle George interviews John Donovan 

Etholle: 3 minutes to 1, the 1 o’clock news coming your way …
But first the story of a high tech David and Goliath battle of the modern age

A man in Colchester has spent the last 13 years taking on the oil giant Shell from his home. John Donovan’s been doing it from a website that’s become known as one of the first so called gripe sites … this is where people set up websites to detail their arguments or gripes with a certain company … But John’s site royaldutchshellplc.com was one of the first to become very well known … he’s in our Colchester studio now and joins us …

Good afternoon to you John …

JD: Good afternoon

Now your legal proceedings with Shell are ongoing so I don’t want to get us or yourself into trouble by going into to much detail but roughly why and how did this all start?

JD: Well, just too correct one thing there are no on-going legal proceedings at all. .. not against us. We devised and created games for Shell from about 1981 and had a very good mutually beneficial relationship .. the promotions were national promotions in Britain and overseas .. budgets of £4.5 … and we won an award for one of them … putting their sales up by 30% and it was a very happy relationship … but then there was a management change in the early 1990’s and we put up a series of promotional ideas to the new management and I opened The Daily Mail one morning and I saw a colour advert for a promotion which was very similar to one of the proposals we had put forward …

ETHOLLE: So that’s where the complaint began … when did you actually set up the website?

JD: Its … it’s a long story … we sued Shell six times in the High Court for alleged breach of confidence in respect of various games and we the final case was in 1999 and we entered into what was called a peace treaty with Shell at the time …

Two years later we alleged that Shell broke the peace treaty .. one of their directors … and we set up the website in response

ETHOLLE: So that’s about six years ago …

JD: That was in 19 … 2004 in fact …

ETHOLLE: Okay

JD: early in 2004

ETHOLLE: We will talk more about the website … I’ve got it up on my screen at the moment. .. there are currently 32 people who are engaged in conversation on your website … absolutely fascinating … John stay with us and we will come back to you after the news and find out exactly how alld why this whole thing has taken over your life … We’ve talking to John Donovan from Colchester. ..

(BBC Radio Essex jingle followed by the news)
Interview resumes …

ETHOLLE: Hello Good afternoon, welcome to Thursdays programme … Currently though we are in conversation with John Donovan … he set up a website campaigning about Royal Dutch Shell Plc set up back in 2004

John have you always been a campaigner?

JD: We have as far as Shell is concerned…

ETHOLLE: no prior to that you know was there anything which got your goat prior to that?

JD:No

ETHOLLE: Prior to that …

JD: No, no, no … its just been as a result of the litigation in the past and the fact that we weren’t happy with the outcome of the last case.

ETHOLLE: Now ..

JD: Shell settled, Shell settled all the early cases in our favour and paid all our legal fees

ETHOLLE: what about the use of the internet and this website then … ? That idea dawned on you prior to 2004?

JD: We had previously set up websites that were anti-Shell if you want to use that description … the earliest time about 10 years ago …

ETHOLLE: and were they very advanced, technically advanced … ?

JD: No, no no, that technology that we are able to use now like the Live Chat facility wasn’t available
then

ETHOLLE: Presumably you were one of the first of these so called grip sites were you?

JD: We were indeed … the thing … the thing that makes it unique is that it’s a news based website … we gather stories from all the way round the world about Shell and we put them on this website and all of the services … the search facility … there are over 17,000 articles about Shell available are all free … no charges at all

ETHOLLE: physically how are you able to do that … does it happen automatically?

JD:No

ETHOLLE: are there computers searching for key words or do you yourself actually have to sit down
and seek out these articles?

JD: I do it all myself

ETHOLLE: How much time does that take up John?

JD: Quite a bit

Laughter from ETHOLLE and JD

JD: Quite a bit

ETHOLLE: Your retired now aren’t you?

JD: I’m retired yes

ETHOLLE: You could be fishing … you could be going out dancing … you could be doing all manner of
things

JD: Yes that’s true but I’ve got a creative brain and it keeps me active

ETHOLLE: You could be doing some painting John

JD laughs

ETHOLLE: that’s fairly creative … so go on, how many hours a day to you spend on it

JD: I get up fairly early in the morning about 7 o’clock and Lspend a couple of hours searching for stories loading them on the website and then I do it intermittently throughout the day and before I go to bed in the evening … so I sleep for about 6 hours and the rest of the time I am constantly checking for new stories and handling things that happen with … contacted by other people that are interested in Shell .. other people that are disgruntled with Shell for one way for another. .. their own employees … we have lots of lots of information and leaked documents that come in from Shell insiders

ETHOLLE: Who are these people who are talking online? You’ve actually lost about five of them since we’ve been on air.. there are only 27 people … who are these 27 people discussing stuff related to a multinational corporation?

JD: Well there from … there from people interested in Shell, Shell investors, Shell employees from all over the world … the site has most traffic from the United States … so its busiest at night … there’s lots of people on in the early hours of the morning

ETHOLLE: Your obsessed it’s fair to say?

JD: I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t. .. other people might call it an obsession

ETHOLLE: somebody, somebody who gets up and does anything from early in the morning to when they go to bed at night day in day out has to have an obsession of some kind

JD: they have an obsession or they have a strong motive … a very strong grievance against the other party and I think that’s how the world has changed … it’s very important now the internet and that if you feel that you are treated badly by a big company and that they ignore every reasonable approach that you make to them there is now something you can do about it other than litigation which is obviously very expensIve

ETHOLLE: Do you feel that you are getting your own back … this is John and the rest of your family come to mention it … do you feel you are getting there?

JD: We’ve made a huge impact on Shell us lots of publications, the Financial Times, various research organisations have all put into print. .. there were several newspaper articles last month about the site

ETHOLLE: now I understand there’s a few people that think … mistake your website for the official website and there are one or two confusions as a result hasn’t there

JD: You mentioned legal proceedings … the last time there were any proceedings was in respect of that domain name royaldutchshellplc.com which is the top level domain name for the company itself, Shell which is a company worth $223 billion dollars. When they unified in early 2004 the Anglo-Dutch arms we got to the domain name before them and they then issued proceedings through the World Intellectual Property Organisation against my father who is 90, Alfred Donovan, to try to get the domain name back … they unfortunately for Shell they failed. We got a unanimous verdict in our favour because it’s an entirely non commercial site

ETHOLLE: But people have sent you job applications I’ve heard

JD: we get job applications with CV’s

ETHOLLE: and this is for people who want to work for Shell not for John Donovan

JD: Absolutely … and we get we’ve had terrorist threats against Shell against Shell installations

ETHOLLE: you pass those on … I hope you pass those on …

JD: We … I’m in almost daily contact at board level with Shell and I pass on all information to them

ETHOLLE: Do they have someone to deal with you? Ifthere a John Donovan office you know that deals with all this paper and words that you are creating?

JD: A few months ago we made an application to Shell under the Data Protection Act and they released a lot of documents to us … and we found out that they had indeed formed a team to counteract our activities … if we write to a third party then Shell contacts them and puts their side of the story … obviously there is two sides of every story

ETHOLLE: Have you thought have you though you know that your energies could be channelled into into something else? I mentioned fishing rather tongue in cheek .. Idon’t know … you could even work for charity or something.

JD: Yes … I get satisfaction out of what we are doing and it keeps me going every day, it keeps my brain active and I am motivated because of the grievance that we feel we have against Shell

ETHOLLE: Will you ever rest

JD: Well my father is still at it involved his laptop … we write our own articles and publish them about Shell and they are picked up by Google News and so on and it interests both of us.

ETHOLLE: Well it’s very interesting to have you on our programme John, thanks for joining us today

JD: That quite okay

ETHOLLE: That’s John Donovan from Colchester, from our Colchester studio giving us an insight into what life can be like if you try to take on a one man crusade or a two man crusade if you include 90 year old Alfred with his laptop.

Ends 14 minutes past 1pm

From:
Sent: maandaq 15 oktober 2007 10:39
To:
Subject: RE: RDSplc website

thanks – presumably some of the information here – the fact that he spends most of every day doing this – is good context when discussing the site with media?

regards

From:
Sent: 15 October 2007 14:35
To:
Subject: ISSUES BULLETS

Gents – bullets as usual:

?????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????

John Donovan appeared on Radio Essex on Thursday – informal transcript on his website. IMF subgroup (including Legal and Web Comms) looking at possible ways of addressing new media,
including blogs.

16 October 2007

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell 

ISSUE DESCRIPTION 
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com that is critical of the SheIl Group. ln 2006 the Donovans re- launched their website – providing daily news feeds of Shell-related stories and a live chat forum. They stated that they ‘wanted it to become a magnet for people who had a problem with the company’. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’.
Over the past year the Donovans have: claimed that they provided the Russian government with Sakhalin II documentation which was subsequently used against Shell; criticised Shell’s Safety Record, most specifically related to North Sea safety and allegations made by xxxxxxxxx supported xxxxxxx an ex-employee of Shell Malaysia who, the Donovans claim, was unfairly sacked; ana reported that a number of Shell insiders provide them with information on company activities.
The Donovans recently obtained a large amount of information from Shell under the UK Data Protection Act; one email was subsequently the basis for an article in the Daily Mail newspaper.

KEY MESSAGES 
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so.

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS 
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

BRIDGING 
Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act
requests? 

We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties.
We also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.
Is there any communication between Shell and the Donovans? 
There has been some communication relating to legal matters/issues (the only approved Shell contacts are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. However, we do not comment on specific issues raised by the
Donovans. Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.”
Why do you not comment on the specific issues raises by the Donovans?
We have found that attempts on our part to have a constructive debate have been unproductive, as their sole objective is to criticise Shell. They will portray any information provided to them in the most negative light possible or draw inferences from it which are outside its natural meaning. This is clear to anyone accessing the site. Mr (John) Donovan, in an unofficial transcript of an interview on Radio Essex 11 October 2007 posted on their website, makes clear that he spends much of every day on the site: as he says, “other people might call it an obsession”.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel? 
Ever since the “McLibel” case, any large corporation suing an individual is likely to lose reputationally by being perceived to be a bully, however justified a legal claim would be. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration.

16 October 2007

19 October 2007 09:44

Original Message —–
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Fri Oct 19 09:44:43 2007
Subject: FW: DONOVAN WEBSITE

Greetings xxxxxxx – no big deal, but you might like to be aware that there is an article addressed xxxxxxx on the Donovan website.

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/

The content is very much the usual ??????????????????
safety allegations. Starts as follows: ??????????????????

It is quite possible that they might try and contact you by email; our position is not to respond, since doing so only attracts further interest. Gratifyingly, their chatline recently seems to be attracting very little (and low quality) input.

We have an issues brief on the subject (recently updated/checked with xxxxxxxxx as attached.

Regards

15 November 2007 10:09

——Origlnal Message—–
From:
Sent: donderdag 15 november 2007 10:09
To:
Subject: The Donovans are back

I presume this is just the usual from the Donovan’s? Someone here has picked this up? I’m assuming/hoping there hasn’t actually been a leak of any documentation?????

The stuff was only posted on Tues althoguh it relates to meetings held years ago

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007 /11 /12/committee-of-managing-directors-minutes-af-the-meeting-held-in-Iondon-on-monday-22 -and-tuesday-23-july-2002/

26 December 2007

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell 

ISSUE DESCRIPTION 
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com that is critical of the SheIl Group, and which they wanted ‘to become a magnet for people who had a problem with the company’. They stated that they ‘wanted it to become a magnet for people who had a problem with the company’. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’.
Over the past year the Donovans have: claimed that they provided the Russian government with Sakhalin II documentation which was subsequently used against Shell; criticised Shell’s Safety Record, most specifically related to North Sea safety and allegations made by xxxxxxxxx supported xxxxxxx an ex-employee of Shell Malaysia who, the Donovans claim, was unfairly sacked; and reported that a number of Shell insiders provide them with information on company activities. They have recently been publishing large amounts of information relating to the reserves litigation which have already been posted by the US Court service on its Internet site and accordingly are already in the public domain.

The Donovans recently obtained a large amount of information from Shell under the UK Data Protection Act; one email was subsequently the basis for an article in the Daily Mail newspaper.

KEY MESSAGES 
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so (except in the most exceptional of circumstances, such as where the Donovans intended engaging in speculation

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS 
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

BRIDGING 
Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act requests? 
We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties.
We also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.
Is there any communication between Shell and the Donovans? 
There has been some communication relating to legal matters/issues (the only approved Shell contacts are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. However, we do not comment on specific issues raised by the
Donovans. Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.”
Why do you not comment on the specific issues raises by the Donovans?
We have found that attempts on our part to have a constructive debate have been unproductive, as their sole objective is to criticise Shell. They will portray any information provided to them in the most negative light possible or draw inferences from it which are outside its natural meaning. This should hopefuly be clear to anyone accessing the site. Mr (John) Donovan, in an unofficial transcript of an interview on Radio Essex 11 October 2007 posted on their website, makes clear that he spends much of every day on the site: as he says, “other people might call it an obsession”.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel? 
Ever since the “McLibel” case, any large corporation suing an individual is likely to lose reputationally by being perceived to be a bully, however justified a legal claim would be. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration.

26 December 2007

19 February 2008 4 Pages

—–Original Messaqe—–
From:”
Sent: 19 Februarv 2008 09:26
To: :
Cc: .
Subject: RE: Shell Safety on Wiki (sorry – one last e-mail)

While I agree that we should avoid a long e-mail exchange – please be aware that there is a llM new media team reviewing this subject (led by xxx. Before any actions are taken we would be grateful if you could run it past us (as we are looking at wider issues on Wikipedia).

FYI – I have compiled a list of the main pages related to Shell on Wikipedia.

There are a number that are critical (largely prepared by Donnovan).

Current Wikipedia pages related to Shell:

Main Shell Page

<http://en .wikiped ia. org/wiki/RoyaL Dutch_Shell>

Page on Shell Chemicals

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheIl_Chemicals>

Page on ‘Shell controversies’

(Donovan driven)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_ RoyaL Dutch _Shell>

Page on ‘Safety Concerns’

(Donovan driven)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoyaLDutch_SheILsafety _concerns>

Page on Shell Foundation

<http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Foundation>

Page on Shell Australia

<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Shell_Australia>

There are also presidents being set for the removal of crisism pages (based on Wikipedia guidelines). I am following this discussion online (i.e. Wal-mart).

??????????????????????????????????

Wikipedia Guidance:

Criticism (Wikipedia policy)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilWikipedia:CRITICISM>

States that critism sections (or controversies) should not appear seperately.

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilWikipedia:NPOV> guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive
viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.

The Shell entry is part of the WikiProject Companies project. We might consider using the discussion page on this site (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies>) to open a discussion around a
standard structure for companies that makes it easier for users to navigate information (possibily in partnership with other companies). This doesn’t need to include the removal of ‘controversies’ (but might)- .but would ensure that the structure of the entries was user friendly, balanced and easily updatable.

Regards

Internet: -:-<http://www.shell.com/>>

—–Original Message–
From:
Sent: dinsdag 19 februari 2008 10: 13
To:
Cc: –
Subject: RE: Shell Safety on Wiki

???????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????????????????????

if you look at the Discussion and History tabs on the wiki article you will see who has been writing and commenting on the content. The main author is John Donovan, which is not much of a surprise.

We have several options:
– ignore
– add our views in the Comments section. This can eventually lead to ‘recommendation for deletion’ 
– edit the article to present Shell views

If we start to edit the article, we have to be prepared for a long and resource-intensive struggle. Mr Donovan has said openly that he spends most of his day on this sort of thing, and no doubt can call on other helpers, too.

Also, if we edit only part of the entry, I think that we give credibility to all the bits we don’t edit (“we must be ok with them, otherwise we’d have edited them”).

Happy to discuss further

regards

From:
Sent: 18 February 2008 12:39
To:
Subject: Shell Safety on Wiki

did you see this?

4 April 2008

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell 

ISSUE DESCRIPTION

Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’. The Donovans obtained a large amount of information from Shell under the UK Data Protection Act; one email became the basis for an article in the Daily Mail newspaper. 

KEY MESSAGES 
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so (except in the most exceptional of circumstances, such as where the Donovans intended engaging in speculation

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS 
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

BRIDGING 
Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act requests? 
We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of individuals.
We also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.
Is there any communication between Shell and the Donovans? 
There has been some communication relating to legal matters/issues (the only approved Shell contacts are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. However, we do not comment on specific issues raised by the
Donovans. Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matters, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.” Nor have we requested nor authorised anyone, whether employees or otherwise, to engage in postings on the RDSplc website.
Why do you not comment on the specific issues raises by the Donovans?
We have found that attempts on our part to have a constructive debate have been unproductive, as their sole objective is to criticise Shell. They will portray any information provided to them in the most negative light possible or draw inferences from it which are outside its natural meaning. This should hopefuly be clear to anyone accessing the site. Mr (John) Donovan, in an unofficial transcript of an interview on Radio Essex 11 October 2007 posted on their website, makes clear that he spends much of every day on the site: as he says, “other people might call it an obsession”.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel? 
Ever since the “McLibel” case, any large corporation suing an individual is likely to lose reputationally by being perceived to be a bully, however justified a legal claim would be. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration. Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding RoyalDutch Shell’? 
• Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible – and gratifyingly these are well regarded by users and in independent site rankings.
If asked whether it is true that RDSplc gets more ‘hits’ than the Shell site: 
• We regard these numbers as proprietary. However, interested parties can make their own comparisons through sites such as www.alexa.com. and we are very comfortable with the conclusion that they would reach.

4 April 2008

29 April 2008 13:04

From:
Sent: dinsdag 29 april 2008 13:04
To:
Cc:
Subject: RDSplc – comments re EC

L&G – As agreed, we don’t make specific comments on allegations on the above; and on Legal matters we are in the excellent hands of xxxxxxxxxxx (who monitors this closely) and xxxxxxxxxxxxx. However, you may like to be aware or what seem to be (even by the website’s standards) particularly offensive comments about various members of the EC from both John Donovan and xxxxxx also at the end a reference to retention payments and the AGM.

Regards

Former Shell International HSE Group Auditor Bill Campbell comments on the article: “Contenders for the tarnished Shell crown”

Bill Campbell
Apr 28th, 2008

My only comment on the statement that quote ‘Brinded has a track record of turning a blind eye to corrupt management and has the blood on his hands of Shell offshore workers that lost their lives in a preventable accident on the Brent Bravo production platform’ was that he was in fact the corrupt Manager (Director) and the 1999 major audit atypically pointed the finger at him as the main catalyst for the demise witnessed in that organisation.

He has subsequently, along with his buddy Van der Veer put great energy into covering his wrongdoings up with the assistance of the HSE in relation to the deaths and the subversion of an internal report by the Chief Auditor at that time Jakob Stausholm. For background to the HSE involvement refer to testimony published on your website yesterday from official extracts from the parliamentary Steering Committee.

This evidence put to the Committee for circulation has not been denied by the CEO of the HSE Geoffrey Podger or the HSC Chairman Judith Hackitt who both could raise no objections in Law to its publication.

Brinded, who I personally had good relations with in the short period I worked with him in his CRINE initiative etc, and who I think is an acutely intelligent man, and no doubt from a business perspective is by far the best man for the job, will never succeed Van der Veer in my opinion. His flaw is that he does not have a sense of balance and to succeed will do anything he can including treating the people offshore in 1999 and after 2003, who were at risk, as some lower form of pond life.

He has caused great pain and embarrassment to the non executive Chairman and the Board who I think have already informed him that he is not a contender. Of course Shell if they get hot and bothered about this statement will deny this, but of course as can be seen from the unusual case of Hill vs Hill also published on your system, well they would, wouldn’t they. Anyway time as they say will tell.

In the last analysis Ollila is not going to replace Van der Veer, the Junior Soprano of the Oil business with his buddy Malcolm, the erstwhile Tony Soprano. Jeroen and Malcolm are to the oil business as the Soprano’s are to the waste management business in New Jersey. You may have to translate this humourous but serious comment to the Company Secretary.

Bill Campbell

Contenders for the tarnished Royal Dutch Shell crown

By John Donovan

The Financial Times published an article on Saturday revealing Shell’s intention to make “one-off retention payments to three Shell executive directors”, Malcolm Brinded, Peter Voser and Linda Cook; the three candidates vying to succeed Jeroen van der Veer when he retires in June next year.
Financial Times Article <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/04/26/ alarm-at-shell-retention-awards-of-over-15-million-each-for-malcolm-brinded-linda -cook-and-peter-voser/>

Not an inspiring trio

Brinded has a track record of turning a blind eye to corrupt management and has the biood on his hands of Shell offshore workers that lost their lives in a preventable accident on the Brent Bravo production platform for which Shell admitted responsibility and paid a record breaking fine. Brinded failed to take adequate action after a “Touch Fuck All” safety culture was exposed in a safety audit led by Shell International HSE Group Auditor, Bill Campbell.

Peter Voser, the Chief Financial Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Pic, is up to his neck in the UBS Bank scandal. He is a member of the blundering board of directors’ accused of serious wrongdoing, including misrepresentation and alleged fraud.

Linda Cook along with disgraced former Shell executive directors Sir Phil Watts and Walter van de Vijver, was part of a Shell management team which misled investors over the volume of Shell’s reserves. The securities fraud and the resultant scandal cost Shell shareholders $850 million in fines, class action settlements and legal costs. We have documents confirming her p~rsonal involvement in important presentations which contained materially false information.

A former Shell executive, Paddy Briggs, has already made the following comment about the proposed retention payments:

 

 

 

We shouldn’t be surprised by the “retention payments” story but my God how offensive it is that these already hugely overpaid people get more gold whilst the Shell Pensioner community has to be satisfied with the minimum that the company can legally get away with. The poorer Pensioners have been hit by the abolition of the 10% tax rate and by real inflation that far exceeds the RPI. Not that our mega-Rich (and soon to be even richer) leaders could give a damn.

Mr Briggs recently resigned from the Shell Pensioners Association on a point of principle because Shell management refused to make a once off payment to Shell pensioners hard hit by rising living costs, due in part to the increasing cost of oil. This is ironic bearing in mind that Shell is embroiled in the sinister events in Nigeria generating record high oil prices at the gas pump. As we have previously pointed out, Shell has a commercial relationship with the gangs attacking Shell infrastructure including pipelines. These attacks occur at a sufficient frequency to repeatedly crimp oil supply, thereby driving up global oil prices. There are articles published every day citing the attacks as being a contributory factor to high oil prices.

Is Shell capable of such skulduggery? The answer is yes, it has a track record of sinister activities and unethical trading, including being a “repeat offender” in setting up illegal cartels. It has been fined on that basis.

Wikipedia Article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell>

Within the last few days, Shell has been accused of being a participant in more unlawful price-fixing, this time in respect of the sale of cigarettes.

And it already has a history of engaging in skulduggery in Nigeria.

<http://www.e-ir.info/?p=399>

Wikipedia Article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell>

We are also talking about a company making massive profits but which has failed to ensure that lifeboats on a Shell North Sea platform were properly maintained. Once again profits were put before the safety of Shell employees.

upstreamonline.com article <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/03/17 /upstreamonlinecom-lifeboats-trouble-at-brent- field/>

On the one hand Shell is intent on heaping huge retention payments funded from multibillion dollar profits on three fat cat executive directors of questionable integrity, all indemnified to the hilt against claims for any misdeeds, apparently including fraud, while refusing to make a once off payment to Shell pensioners and failing to spend enough money to maintain the safety of lifeboat’s serving Shell offshore employees.

What would be the most appropriate word to describe this situation: Wicked? Evil? Obscene? Take your pick.

I feel confident these matters will be raised at the forthcoming Shell AGM.

27 June 2008

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell 

ISSUE DESCRIPTION

Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’. The Donovans obtained a large amount of information from Shell under the UK Data Protection Act; one email became the basis for an article in the Daily Mail newspaper. 

KEY MESSAGES 
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• Although Shell disagrees fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which the Donovans base their various allegations, the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans and will continue to do so (except in the most exceptional of circumstances, such as where the Donovans intended engaging in speculation on xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS 
• Shell went well beyond the strict call of duty in ensuring that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.

BRIDGING 
Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act requests? 
We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of individuals. We also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.
Is there any communication between Shell and the Donovans? 
There has been some communication relating to legal matters/issues (the only approved Shell contacts are xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. However, we do not comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.” Nor have we requested nor authorised anyone, whether employees or otherwise, to engage in postings on the RDSplc website.
Why do you not comment on the specific issues raises by the Donovans?
We have found that attempts on our part to have a constructive debate have been unproductive, as their sole objective is to criticise Shell. They will portray any information provided to them in the most negative light possible or draw inferences from it which are outside its natural meaning. This should hopefuly be clear to anyone accessing the site. Mr (John) Donovan, in an unofficial transcript of an interview on Radio Essex 11 October 2007 posted on their website, makes clear that he spends much of every day on the site: as he says, “other people might call it an obsession“.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel? 
Ever since the “McLibel” case, any large corporation suing an individual is likely to lose reputationally by being perceived to be a bully, however justified a legal claim would be. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration. Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding RoyalDutch Shell’? 
• Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.
If asked whether it is true that RDSplc gets more ‘hits’ than the Shell site: 
• We regard these numbers as proprietary. However, interested parties can make their own comparisons through sites such as www.alexa.com. and we are very comfortable with the conclusion that they would reach.

27 June 2008

30 July 2008 10:54

From:
Sent: 30 July 2008 10:54
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Shell Ethiopia staff … in the Media

Thanks

As previously, we should not respond in any way to postings on the RDSplc website. However, should the topic be taken up by the mainstream media, whether local or international, we should treat that as any normal media enquiry, and without referencing RDSplc in our response.

In general, the RDSplc website is recognised as highly partisan and is not seen as a balanced source by the media.

Let me know if you need more re our relationship with the RDSplc website.

Regards

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 30 July 2008 10:39
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Shell Ethiopia staff …in the Media

Gents,
You may pick up that John Donovan has posted this on the web. I am not sure where yet, but I suspect royaldutchshellplc.com despite not being able to find it there. This follows some local press coverage and a letter from staff alleging that the sale announced on 11 July is against their human rights. The xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx has met staff, but we do not wish to respond until after the xxxxxxxxx, has met staff on 5 August. The attached also mentions the ongoing case in Malaysia.

Regards,

5 January 2009 11:59

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 05 January 2009 11:59
To: r
Subject: Royal Dutch Shell, Xxx Xxxxxx, YouTube and Hitler

Gents,

Not sure if you’ve seen the latest from Donovan: http://www.bloggernews.net/ Interestingly it was also picked up by USA Today.

Regards:

From:
Sent: 05 January 2009 12:23
To:
Subject: RE: Royal Dutch Shell, Xxx Xxxxx, YouTube and Hitler 
Thanks – I think using Xxx Xxxxx as a excuse to dredge up the old Deterding stuff is stretching things, even by Donovan’s standards.

Regards

15 January 2009 08:40 Ray Fox AGM

From:
Sent: 15 January 2009 08:40
To:
Subject: RDSplc webslte

The above xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/01/14/emaiI-from-john-donovan-to-richard-wiseman-chief-ethics- compliance-officer-royal-dutch-shell-plc-14-jan-20091

Xxxxxxxxxxxx is again pushing one of its favourite old allegations, about nuclear contamination, this time saying it has sent letters to neighbours around the area. I can’t see this will generate any serious concerns, as people must by now recognise that this is all complete fantasy; but just in case ….

I he following extract was on the website a few weeks back: “I’m arranging to purchase Shell shares for Mr Fox and his son Christopher. They will then be able to attend the next AGM and although in poor health, speak directly to directors and fellow shareholders. I am sure the media will also be interested. I have recommended that Mr Fox and his family and friends arrange to hand out leaflets at The Shell Centre so that Shell employees are briefed on these matters.”

So just in case they do appear at the AGM on 19 May (presumably London venue) we will need to have a (very short) issue brief on the topic prepared in advance.

I’ll be in Shell Centre tomorrow – I’ll look in.

Best regards

5 February 2009 Shell Ethics

Sent: Thu Feb 0516:31:342009
Subject: RE: Shell Ethics
Hi – thanks for raising.

xxxxxxxxx has traditionally been a bit too enthusiastic about responding to Donovan, and this has merely resulted in additional coverage and attention on RDSplc. And if we respond on one thing, it will create an expectation that we will respond on everything else – or else by not responding, imply that we agree with it. So our advice has been not to respond at all.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and neither of them is I think taken seriously by the media. At the moment, there isn’t much interest – eg there are very few entries in their Live Chat section. If we start responding to/contributing to the site, that will also encourage others to visit it.

Of course, if eg the serious media do follow up on a question initially raised by RDSplc, then we will respond to that.

Hope this helps.
Regards

9 March 2009 Brandjes

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: maandaq 9 maart 2009 13:36
To:
Subject: FW: Wikipedia Royal Dutch Shell articles

Please see attached message from Mr D. What do you want to do about this?

—–Original Message—–
From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: vrijdag 6 maart 2009 17:24
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM SI-LC
Subject: Wikipedia Royal Dutch Shell articles

Dear Mr Brandjes

As you may be aware, I am a major contributor to the Wikipedia articles about Royal Dutch Shell – probably the main contributor.

All information has to be added and authored on an impartial balanced basis in line with Wikipedia requirements and be supported by verifiable reputable independent sources. I have always added all information under my own name and openly declared my background.

Over the past several months I have collected together a considerable volume of evidence to use in support of additional information I am adding to the existing Wikipedia pages, a number of which contain negative information about Shell e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilControversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

There has been discussion on the “controversies” talk page about the need for a Wikipedia article covering entirely positive aspects of our company (speaking as a long term Shell shareholder). This could provide a counter balance to articles containing criticism of Shell. However, no one has been prepared (or had the time?) to make the effort necessary to collect together the evidence to support a “positives” page.

I have now done this. It is included on a webpage on which I have gathered the evidence to support new information I will be adding shortly.

http://www.shellnews.net/wikipedia/wikipedia-evidence-file.html

The relevant information is currently under the heading “Royal Dutch Shell initiatives”.

Could you kindly let me know if you feel another heading would be more appropriate? It is difficult to find one covering all of the topics currently included under the “initiatives” heading.

Secondly, can you direct me to any other information, which should ideally be included in the “initiatives” page?

Thirdly, if you spot any information under any of the subject headings which Shell knows to be categorically inaccurate or untrue, please say so and I will take appropriate action.

Wikipedia is a great source of encyclopaedic information for the public, the media, investors and anyone who wants to know about the Royal Dutch Shell Group. The Shell related Wikipedia articles reveal the dna of Shell and as far as I know, are already the most comprehensive and informative about any multinational. They will be further enhanced by the addition of more information that will be of continuing interest in coming decades to future generations.

The great thing is that the pages can be updated in line with unfolding events.

As you are probably aware, the Wikipedia articles relating to Shell have been edited from Shell locations without this being disclosed. Personally I believe Shell has the right to openly correct any untrue information on Wikipedia about its history or activities and would encourage Shell to do so.

Best Regards
John Donovan

8 April 2009

Confidential

Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell 

ISSUE CONTEXT

Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’. Recently they posted an open letter to Shell from a xxxxxx regarding alleged nuclear activity at a former Shell terminal at Earley, outside Reading in the UK, which was closed in the late 1980s, decommissioned in full compliance with all relevance legislation, and then sold for redevelopment.
They have said they will buy shares for Xxx Xxx and his son to attend the AGM. Shell xxxxxxxxxxxxx responded to xxxxxx 2 February 2009.

KEY MESSAGES 
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• We do not comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.

SUPPORTING FACTS
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our legal position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.”

BRIDGING

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act requests? 
We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?

The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration.

Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding RoyalDutch Shell’? 
• Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.

16 June 2009 4:59PM

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 4:59 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Donovan Blogs

http://royaldutchshellp Ic.com/wp-wall-guestbook/

All, the blogs in question, including the ones that were provided to me in hardcopy are currently posted on the public blog section of the Donovan site.

Xxxxx if there is anything you can do in advance of talking to xxxxx on Friday, pls have ago.

Rgds,

17 June 2009

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:57 AM
RE: Donovan Blogs. Privileged and confidential

.
Will do, as you can see from other notes that I have copied you on, there is high level interest on behalf of xxxxxxxx who is targeted in several blogs with specific concern at his direct reports. The reason I requested CAS involvement is due to conversations that xxxxxx had with NCFTA week before last and I know one of the topics of conversation was the website in question.

CAS now has resources assigned to the NCFTA center that are RDS focused. I have alerted DS Compliance that these are low probability of success type investigations. There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan, that being said, if we do find the person(s) communicating with his site and take any type of action, I suspect it will be posted immediately.

—–Original Message—

Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:44 AM

Subject: RE: Donovan Blogs. Privileged and confidential
Gents

This is a sensitive issue, please tread very carefully around any external contact(s). Mr Donovan tends to twist any bona fide efforts to his own end. We do not want to give him further ammunition and thus aggravate the situation.

Regards

19 June 2009 14:21

From:
Sent: 19 June 2009 14:21
To:
Subject: Donovan site – comments on EC-1

Have you seen the notes re xxxxxxxxxxxx on the Donovan site?

http://royaldutchshellplc.com

19 June 2009 16:46

RE: Donovan site – comments on EC-l

Subject: FW: Donovan site – comments on EC-1

Xxxxxxxx are you aware of latest on Donovan site?

—–Original Messaae—–
From:
Sent: 19 June 2009 16:46
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Donovan site – comments on EC-1

Xxxxxxxx just wanted to make you aware of latest on Donovan website (link below). Looks like there are Shell people contributing to the blog on this site and have singled out the xxxxxxx others following the announcement of the latest EC-1 changes. I have extracted the relevant blogs (found on right hand side of the web page).

19 June 2009 17:20

From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Fri Jun 19 17:20:542009
Subject: RE: Donovan site – comments on EC-1

Hi Xxxx – Indeed I have been following this (you might also add xxxxxxxxxxx as one of the site’s favourite targets). ?????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????? My previous advice to xxxxxxxx has been to ignore it – any Shell reaction would merely encourage Donovan to think we take this seriously and would likely stimulate more comment on/interest in the site.

Also, eg we have long decided not to take legal action against the site (although Donovan would probably welcome this) – eg they often refer to xxxxxxxxxxx as xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Best regards

—-Original Message—-
From:
Sent: 19 June 2009 10:48
To:
Cc:

8 July 2009

Confidential Focal Point:

Donovan Campaign Against Shell 

ISSUE CONTEXT 
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’. In the past they have promoted allegations from eg- Shell safety auditor xxxxxxxx over North Sea safety and from a xxxxxxx over alleged nuclear activity at a former Shell terminal at Earley outside Reading in the UK, issues over a number of Shell Malaysia pensioners and articles and comments from Shell pensioner xxxxxxxx. Recently various posts on their “Shell Blog” have discussed the reorganization and some of the Shell people involved.
KEY MESSAGES 
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• We do not comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.

SUPPORTING FACTS 
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.”

BRIDGING 

????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????

Did you avoid disclosing certain information in response to the Donovans’ Data Protection Act requests? 
• We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
• The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration. 

Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell? 
• Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.

08 July 2009

15 July 2009 17:16

From:
sent: 15 July 2009 17: 16
To:
Subject: Donovans

right, so here are few questions:

John Donovan says he has about a dozen high level executive who regularly feed him inside info .. For example, he broke Xxxxx reorg plan’s in May. Is this worrying? are you trying to root out who these people are?

Have you tried to engage with the Donovans, to try to bring them on side of get them to tone down their anti Shell stance?

He claims to have supplied information directly to xxxxxxxxx sending info after he was given xxxxx personal fax number, that led directly to Shell having to sell down its stake. That obviously has cost the company many billions in lost revenue.

One, do you contest those facts? and Two, are you doing anything to get the website shut down?

Do you have a standing policy on how to deal with them?

I imagine there may be a few more that come up, but that it is for timebeing.

cheers,

19 July 2009 12:24

From:
Sent: 19 July 2009 12:24
To:
Cc:
SUbject: Donovan story

You know the background to this one. The Donovans come across well in the story

49064724. pdf
(Compressed)

Client: Shell
Source: The Sunday Times (Business)
Date: 19 July 2009
Page: 7
Circulation: 1205263
Size: 943cm2
AVE: 30902.11


Two men and a website mount
vendetta against an oil giant 

(FULL ARTICLE PRINTED – CAN BE SEEN BY CLICKING ON LINK)

20 July 2009 15:55 The Sunday Times article

From:
Sent: 20 July 2009 15:55
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: re Sunday Times piece yesterday

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the Sunday Times becomes “a place for trading views with the Donavans” but the sentence they have published is 100% wrong. This is not what the trial concluded – though I’d like the lawyers to confirm it – and if you know anything about the way Donovan works you will know he will turn this quote into fact faster than you can blink – and the piece below is probably a response to the ego boost he’s received through xxxxx interest.

That’s why we need to think about it xxxxxxxxx

(Related Shell doc supplied under previous DPA application concerning wish to “kill” Sunday Times story)

30 July 2009 17:04

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 30 July 2009 17:04
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: RoyalDutch Shell: Shell Brent Bravo fatalities – why a criminal
Importance: High

Please note this negative Brent safety story from RoyalDutchShellplc.com that has been lifted by Bloomberg.

Xxxxxxxx are criticised in the piece as well as our response to the 1999 audit on Brent Bravo. At the end it states EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHELL RELATING TO THIS MATTER WILL BE PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY 31 July 2009

Has anyone been contacted by them and do we know that they plan to publish correspondence as stated below?

No further media enquiries on this at my end.

—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 30 July 2009 15:40
To:
Subject: RE: RoyalDutch Shell: Shell Brent Bravo fatalities – why a criminal

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/07/30/shell-brent -bravo-fatalities-why-a-criminal-investigation-is-in-progress/

Shell Brent Bravo fatalities – why a criminal investigation is in progress
Jul 30th, 2009 by John Donovan.
By Bill Campbell, former HSE Group Auditor, Shell International

On the 3rd of September 1999 an Audit was carried out on the Brent Bravo installation. Subsequently a further 6 audits were completed on other North Sea installations operated at that time by Shell Expro, a subsidiary of Shell UK Ltd.

The results of these combined audits was presented to Shell management on 22nd October 1999 and the opinion of the audit was that there were serious deficiencies in the management of health and safety offshore.

Audit findings in the main try to avoid apportioning blame but the consensus opinion was that the cause of what was verified to be a negative safety culture both onshore and offshore was due to the drivers and messages emanating from the then Managing Director Malcolm Brinded.

Brinded did not take these findings well and took action to dismiss the Lead Auditor who was an SIEP employee and savaged the rest of the team who were Shell Expro employees all but one being internal auditors.

The consequences of all this proved fatal (see ongoing explanation) because the audit, still in its early stages lost focus, was disheartened and essentially was unable to exercise any influence on the behaviours witnessed at the time.

The SIEP lead Auditor recommended in 1999 that the Brent Field Management team be suspended from duty pending an investigation into their conduct, but this recommendation was not carried out. An investigation into these matters carried out in 2004/5 led by the then Group Chief Internal Auditor Jakob Stausholm found that Brinded had considered the removal of the Brent Asset Manager. He had declined to do this however because he was concerned that this decision would have a negative effect on that individuals mental stability.

The most important information provided by Stausholm supported by Richard Sykes was that they could find no evidence that the short term immediate actions to reduce risks on Brent Bravo were ever undertaken. They also reported that the longer-term actions to correct the negative behaviour within the organisation had been effectively truncated whilst only 20% complete.

These findings were presented on 25th July 2005, in the C16 building of the headquarters to the then CEO Jeroen Van der Veer in the presence of his legal counsel Beot Hess. A general discussion ensued as to whether the failure of Shell Expro to react positively to the 1999 findings contributed directly or indirectly to the subsequent deaths on Brent Bravo in September 2003. The only significant contribution made by the CEO was that whatever the consequences no blame, in his opinion, could or should be apportioned to the Shell Directors Brinded and Finlayson. To quote his words verbatim he said Directors don’t sign permits. It was clear from this statement that he considered that the deceased had been liable in great part for their own misfortune because they had gone into the enclosed shaft to repair a leaking temporary repair without a permit.

Let’s consider the evidence as to why the failure to follow-up on the 1999 findings proved to have fatal consequences?

The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the Brent Bravo deaths reported that the deceased had entered the shaft to effect repairs to a temporary patch on the liquid drain line from a degassifier vessel. This vessel had been for a prolonged period knowingly operated with a faulty level control valve and a downstream ESD valve known to be in a failed condition. When the patch gave way a significant volume of rich hydrocarbons flooded into the enclosed space causing the death of two persons through asphyxiation. In 1999 a principal concern on Brent Bravo was that the main test separator was being operated in the same condition. The behaviour of operating production equipment knowingly whilst it was in a dangerous condition had clearly not been corrected in the prolonged period between 1999 and 2003.

In 1999 the Audit reported that violation of the permit system was common. In 2003 a Shell investigation post the fatalities found that to carry out work under the so called operation envelope, in essence by-passing the permit system, have become common practice not only on Brent Bravo but throughout the field.

In 1999 the Audit reported that ESDV were being regularly operated when they had failed their leak-off tests and in some cases the performance results of these tests had been falsified. The Shell nvestigation post the fatalities indicated that to operate ESDV in this manner had occurred on at least ten installations and false reporting of performance results was common. The Sheriff reported that the failure of the specific ESDV in line with the degassifier vessel significantly contributed to the amount of gas entering the enclosed space. This ESDV was but one of 14 ESDV on that specific installation which had failed during tests carried out during the shutdown process in August only weeks before the fatalities.

Lastly, in 1999 the Audit found lack of essential controls in the management of temporary repairs. Many repairs were not listed on any register and were not pre-approved by a technical authority. The Shell investigation post the fatalities in 2003 found some 30 other repairs on Brent Bravo and circa 500 in the field some 50% of which had not been approved. By November 2003 a number of these repairs were found to be materially defective similar to the repair on the degassifier rundown line which according to the Sheriff was the initiating event leading to the deaths.

Lastly, in 1999 the Audit found lack of essential controls in the management of temporary repairs. Many repairs were not listed on any register and were not pre-approved by a technical authority. The Shell investigation post the fatalities in 2003 found some 30 other repairs on Brent Bravo and circa 500 in the field some 50% of which had not been approved. By November 2003 a number of these repairs were found to be materially defective similar to the repair on the degassifier rundown line which according to the Sheriff was the initiating event leading to the deaths.

When all this came under public scrutiny in June 2006 following a BBC Frontline Scotland programme and following considerable coverage in the Oil Industry paper Upstream Shell vehemently rejected any suggestion of wrongdoing. In the press release it stated that it had vigorously pursued the 1999 audit findings and made significant progress in improving safety on its offshore installations between 1999 and 2003 and absolutely refuted any suggestion that it had operated any of its installations in a dangerous condition.

This press release ignored in its entirety the findings of Stausholm and Sykes. According to Stausholm despite his efforts he and Sykes were ignored, coerced and bullied into silence to protect the reputation of the Company, but specifically of the Directors who in 1999 so patently failed their duty of care to their many employees offshore.

This matter was raised in an official complaint to the new RDS Chairman Jorma Ollila in 2007 but the request for him to investigate the conduct of his CEO and Executive Director on these matters was ignored.

The reply from the Chairman and the information passed to him initiating that reply were passed along with other corroborating evidence some time ago to Grampian police.

This had resulted in a major investigation by the Scottish Crown Prosecution Service led by the Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampian assisted by the Area Procurator Fiscal for Central region. They have indicated that they consider the allegations as very serious and could if proved valid highlight criminal corruption and obstruction of justice by HSE officials and Shell Directors.

Because investigations are ongoing not much more needs to be or can be said at this time. The justification for such an investigation is clearly based on the clear contradiction between what the investigators have ascertained to be the facts and what actions were taken, or not taken, by both Shell and the enforcing authority, the HSE both in 1999 and 2003.

For example, none of the evidence that degradation of Shell facilities had been sustained over a prolonged period of time was presented at the Fatal Accident Inquiry, either by the HSE or Shell. Thus a Sheriff, operating blind, did not get to the root cause of the fatalities. The boundary of his Inquiry being set by events only a few weeks previously on Brent Bravo and he was not made aware of information that the same failures co-existed on 16 other offshore installations.

The investigation authorities have clearly established beyond reasonable doubt, both from evidence from an internal HSE investigation, and from the”Shell post fatalities investigation shared with HSE officials in November 2003, by the then Shell Expro Production Director Greg Hill, that from 1999 till 2003 there was a sustained and significant decline in the technical integrity of some 17 Shell installations including Brent Bravo.

Specifically, in the latter case that the four principal causative factors so apparent in 2003 were identical to the failures listed above and verified by Audit to exist in 1999.

The credibility of Jorma Ollila therefore is called very much into question as to whether he was an accessory after the fact in the cover-up of all this or whether he was duped and misled by the executives reporting on these matters to him.

Jorma Ollila has indicated in the last few days that RDS will fully co-operate with the investigating authorities. He has personally not raised, or indicated his intention to raise any objections, legal or otherwise, to what is contained in this Note, all of which he is aware of. I have specifically requested that he pass a copy of the 2005 Stausholm/Sykes findings to them. I am not privy to whether he has done this or not.

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHELL RELATING TO THIS MATTER WILL BE PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY 31 July 2009

—–Original Message—– 
From: ,
Sent: Thursday. July 30. 2009 3:27 PM
To:
Subject: RE: RoyalDutch Shell: Shell Brent Bravo fatalities – why a criminal ????????????????

Xxxxxxxxxxxx can you send us this please – seems odd – thanks

Royal Dutch Shell PLC
—–Original Message—–
From:
Sent: 30 July 2009 15:22
To:
Subject: RoyalDutch Shell: Shell Brent Bravo fatalities – why a criminal ???????????????

RoyalDutch Shell: Shell Brent Bravo fatalities – why a criminal ?????????????

The attached story matches the criteria for the News Alert named “NLRT _SHELL”. Type {97 <GO>} to view the story on wire COS (Company Web Content – Europe ex UK).

This story was classified to the following categories:
Tickers *RDSA LN Royal Dutch Shell PLC

Topics
*CRIME Crime
*MARKETS Markets
COS Company News
NRG Energy
OIL Oil
STK Stock Market News

* – Indicates highly relevant categories.

To de-activate this alert, run {NLRT DEACT NLRT _SHELL <GO>}. To modify this

24 August 2009 17:53 & 25 August 2009 12:54

Internet: http://www.shell.com

From:
Sent: 24 August 2009 17:53
To:
Cc:

Subject: RE: A “heads up” from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sensitivity: Private

Thanks xxxxxxx for the heads-up – I have forwarded to Media and Issues colleagues for info xxxxxxxxx

This may be related to postings that have appeared today on the www.royaldutchshellplc.com site, a site that is well known to Shell.

We will keep an eye on this website and ongoing media interest.

Regards

Internet: http://www.shell.com

From:
Sent: dinsdag 25 augustus 2009 12:54
To:
Cc:

Subject: RE: A “heads up” from Xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sensitivity: Private

Dear Colleagues,

With relation to any messages appearing on the www.royaldutchshellplc.com website, which is the location that seems to be talking about “leaked” e-mails, we have an existing protocol for any responses should we be asked. We don’t respond to specific allegations raised by the RDSplc website. General questions about the site itself are covered by the following.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• We do not comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans, Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.
SUPPORTING FACTS 
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.”

For info, the latest posting on the website includes the following:

“The following is an extract from an email sent on 11 August by Lennert Klement of A/S Dansk Shell to senior Shell executives including Tom Botts, Shell’s Downstream Executive Vice President for Global Manufacturing and Hugh Mitchell, Chief Human Resources & Corporate Officer (and member of the Royal Dutch Shell PIc Executive Committee).

We are extremely upset that the above announcement was leaked to the press without any prior warning to the SEF and in particular to the delegates of the Manufacturing Work Group. It is despicable that the Stanlow workforce should h;ear about their future in the manner that this has occurred. What has happened to Honesty, Integrity and Trust, this is “Shell Language” often used by Management, it is with regret that none of this was apparent.

Klement is Chair of Shell European Forum National Trade Union Representative. The email was also sent to Dr. Agnus Cassens, Bjorn Lindberg, and Lia Belilos, all senior managers at Shell.”

Regards

25 August 2009 07:45

From:
Sent: 25 August 2009 07:45
To:
Subject: RE: A “heads up” from
Sensitivity: Private

Definitely related …. RDSplc website is currently carrying more on this story, including the following extract.

The following is an extract from an email sent on 11 August by Lennert Klement of A/S Dansk Shell to senior Shell executives including Tom Botts, Shell’s Downstream Executive Vice President for Global Manufacturing and Hugh Mitchell, Chief Human Resources & Corporate Officer (and member of the Royal Dutch Shell Pic Executive Committee).

We are extremely upset that the above announcement was leaked to the press without any prior warning to the SEF and in particular to the delegates of the’ Manufacturing Work Group. It is despicable that the Stanlow workforce should hear about their future in the manner that this has occurred. What has happened to Honesty, Integrity and Trust, this is “Shell Language” often used by Management, it is with regret that none of this was apparent.

Klement is Chair of Shell European Forum National Trade Union Representative. The email was also sent to Dr. Agnus Cassens, Bjorn Lindberg, and Lia Belilos, all senior managers at Shell.

—–Original Message—–
From: 24 August 2009 19:00
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject: RE: A “heads up” from xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sensitivity: Private

Thanks, for the heads-up – I have forwarded to Media and Issues colleagues for info
This may be related to postings that have appeared today on the www.royaldutchshellplc.com site, a site that is well known to Shell.

We will keep an eye on this website and ongoing media interest.

Regards

Internet: http://www.shell.com

– we don’t respond to allegations raised by the RDSplc website per se – standard responses are as per the issues brief, ie

KEY MESSAGES 
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell.
• We do not comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans, Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.

SUPPORTING FACTS 
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and more than fully settled many years ago. Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.”

However, if their allegations etc are taken up by any mainstream media, then we respond in the same way as we would if the question came direct from that media in the first place.

Best regards

—–Original Message—-
From:
Sent: 25 August 2009 09:58
From:
To:
Subject: RE: A “heads up” from xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sensitivity: Private

What is our normal approach to responding to any of this. I guess we would say “no comment” if asked by the media – or is there a standard response about the website?

Thanks

25 August 2009 12:06 Domain name

—–Original Message——
From:
Sent: 25 August 2009 12:06
To:
Subject: RE: A “heads up’ from xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sensitivity: Private

Thanks xxxxxxxx – just out of interest, how did he secure the website name?

From:
Sent: 25 August 2009 13:08
To:
Subject: RE: A “heads up” from xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sensitivity: Private

A long story – we registered a lot of “Shell” names, but there are always some, including various ,org, .co etc variants that we didn’t, and the Donovans got this one. We challenged it, but alas they won …. even if they had lost, they would just have chosen a name like “ihateShell.com’ or whatever, so the end result would have been pretty much the same ….

Cheers

26 August 2009 20.19

From:
To:
Cc: .
Sent: Wed Aug 26 20:19:52 2009
Subject: RE: Royaldutchshellplc.com

Thanks, I too was a lucky recipient.

I think xxxxxxx would agree that experience has shown it is usually best to ignore Mr Donovan as any reaction/response tends to be twisted to his end.

Regards

—–Original Message—–

From:
Sent: woensdag 26 augustus 2009 8:17
To:
Cc:

Subject: RE: Royaldutchshellplc.com

????????????????? fully aware – Donovan actually announced this on his website that he will send such an e-mail to all newly appointed VP’:

Internet: http://www.shell.com

18 December 2009 11.34Wlkipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’

From:

Sent: 18 December 2009 11:34

To:

Subject: Wikipedfa site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’

Hi xxxxxxx – Legal are querying the existing wording of our issues brief, where we say that the Donovans are the main drivers of a Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’. They suggest adding the words ‘believed to be”. Is it clear to the public that the Ds are behind most of the content?

Cheers

18 December 2009 12.07: RE: Wlkipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’

see the “Discussion” and “History” tabs on the site.

Specifically, at <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Talk:Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell&action=history> (the History tab), you’ll see that JD is listed as a main contributor, though his last edit was in 2008.

Revision history of Talk:Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

(SHOWS LISTING OF EDITS, MANY BY “Johnadonovan” – USE PDF LINK ABOVE TO VIEW)

The Discussion tab is at <http://en.wikipedia.org!wlki/TalkControversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell>

• Note that “This article was nominated for deletion <http://en,wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion policy>

on October 2007. The result of the discussion

<http://en.wikipedia.org!wiki/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell> was no consensus”

 John Donovan is the main contributor to discussions (or at least someone using that name)

Regards

Shell Focal Point document “Donovan Campaign Against Shell”: 21 Jan 2010

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

CONTEXT 
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are a main driver of a Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’. In the past they have promoted allegations from eg Shell xxxxxxxxxxxxx over North sea safety and from xxxxx over alleged nuclear activity at a former Shell terminal at Earley outside Reading in the UK, and a number of Shell Malaysia related issues. An article about them in the 19 July 2009 Sunday Times was headlined ‘Two men and a website mount vendetta against an oil giant’. Recent posts on their “Shell Blog” have discussed Transition 2009 and some of the Shell people involved. John Donovan has recently been publishing material received following a second Subject Access Request to Shell under the UK Data Protection Act for personal information relating to him, and has been distributing leaflets outside Shell Centre.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell. We are disappointed that they continue to seek to use any recent Shell developments to try and draw attention to their longstanding but unjustified grievances.
• Our general policy is not to comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our past attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.

SUPPORTING FACTS
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and settled many years ago.
Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.”

BRIDGING 
If asked whether the Sunday Times’ statement, that “When a new [Shell] executive took over marketing, he used several of their [the Donovans’ schemes but refused to pay for them”, is true: 
• Absolutely not. Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims – about a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago – were fully investigated and properly dealt with. The fact is that Mr Donovan failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. The Judge not only completely exonerated the character of the Shell executive in question, but also was highly critical of Mr Donovan’s actions throughout the process of litigation.
If asked about the alleged nuclear reactor at Earley: 
• We have given a categorical written assurance that Shell has never been involved In “atomic’ or ‘nuclear” research at Earley or elsewhere in the UK, and that no nuclear bunker is buried under the former Shell terminal. According to the European Commission, the data show radioactivity levels substantially below those considered harmful to human health. Any radioactivity found on the site has nothing to do with Shell’s activities.
Did you avoid disclosing certain information in response to the Donovans’ Data Protection Act requests? 
• We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where It is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties. We did the same for the previous request.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel? 
• The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. However, we do not exclude this as a possibility.
Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell? 
• Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.

21 January 2010

ENDS

Email Correspondence July 2010 (Related article: Shell’s intent to lean on the Financial Times)

From: 
Sent: 27 July 2010 16:39 

To: 

Subject: FW: Energy Source

Voices from the past.

If you look in the attached you will see that Mr Donovan has managed to get FT.com to refer to his website as if it was a respectable source.

This really irritates me and gives him undeserved credibility. Has shell tried to do anything with the FT? If not or it has not worked I could have a go with

Best wishes,

Tel:                        Fax:
Mobile:

RESPONSE

From: 
Sent: 27 July 2010 17:17
 
To:
 
Subject: RE: Energy Source

I will find out from the media people what we have done to try to engage with the FT on this. Incidentally, you should be aware that Donovan has access to most of the emails written to and from Shell about him through his regular Data Protection Act requests.

Regards


Royal Dutch Shell plc

Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Registered in England and Wales number 4366849 

Registered Office: Shell Centre, London, SE 1 

Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands

Email correspondence Sept/Oct 2010

From:
Sent: 25 September 2010 09:47
To:
Subject:    The Donovans

Dear

I have no connections to Shell or the Donovan’s. An insomnia induced, web browsing session led me to the dispute between the two of you. I have no comment regarding the events, other than to say I can see that it has taken up a lot of resources between the two protagonists. If I were in Shell’s position I would offer the Donovan’s £250,000 to leave the world of Shell behind them and to get on with their lives.

Their website www.rovaldutchshellplc.com ranks 6th on Google! That is all.

Kind regards

Email:

The information contained in this electronic transmission is protected by privilege (which is not waived), strictly confidential and intended for use only by the addressee. If you receive this electronic transmission by mistake then the dissemination, distribution or copying of it is strictly prohibited. In such a case please contact us immediately by telephone or return this electronic transmission.

RESPONSE

On 9 Oct 2010, at 07:19,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    > wrote:

Dear

Thank you for your thoughts. I think that inadvertently you are suggesting we respond to blackmail. Apart from the ethical considerations, what we do the next time it happened?

Regards

Royal Dutch Shell plc Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Registered in England and Wales number 4366849 Registered Office: Shell  Centre, London, SE 1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands

Tel:Fax:
Mobile:
Email:
Internet: http://www.shell.com

RESPONSE

From:
Sent:    09 October 2010 09:51
To:
Subject:    Re: The Donovan’s

Dear

[ can’t see how it could be construed as blackmail. 
The Donovan’s have already published information about Shell and will continue to do so. [ am suggesting a legal agreement between the protraganists which would result in The Donovans transferring ownership of all their websites to Shell and agreeing not to publish anything in the future in return for a sum of money.

I own a successful business and the last thing I would want is a determined, disgruntled customer/supplier,    hell bent on making my life difficult.
You must think I’m a complete weirdo or have some connection to the Donovan’s. Truth is I went to a wine tasting in Bury St Edmunds and really liked the building it was in, when I got home I googled the address. It turned out to be the former offices of Don Marketing    .

Having spent 8 hours of my life reading all about the battles between the two of you I felt I might as well write to you and tell you what I would do.

Regards

Sent from my iPhone

RESPONSE

On 9 Oct 2010, at 10:17, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    > wrote:

Mr

As you know the conflict between Shell and the Donovans goes back many years. I would prefer not to go into the details of why an arrangement of the sort you suggest would not work in practice with these individuals.

Regards

Royal Dutch Shell plc Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Registered in England and Wales number 4366849 Registered Office: Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands

Tel
Fax:
Mobile:
Email:
Internet: http://www.shell.com

RESPONSE

From:
Sent:    0-9 October 2010 10.29
To:
Subject:    Re: The Donovan’s

Dear

I guess if it were that simple, it would have been resolved many years ago.

[ hope you’ll excuse my intrusion.

Regards

Sent from my iPhone

27 May 2010 13.27

First Page (ALMOST ENTIRELY BLANK)

From:
To:
1

2nd Page

Cc:
Sent: Thu May 27 13:27:42 l010
Subject: FW: Article about pirate websites

Hi

Can you handle this? We have generic response lines to media queries related to Donovan’s website, but this interview request goes far beyond that. Their deadline is next Thursday.
Best,

From:
Sent: woensdag 26 mei 2010 15:32
To: .
Subject: Article about pirate websites

H

Good to talk to you just now. Here is a description of the article we are writing.

Pirates of the Intranet

New communication vessels are appearing on the communications horizon: unofficial pirate sites created by employees for employees such as www.browncafe.com for UPSand http://royaldutchshellplc.comlfor the oil giant. And of course every corporation has an unofficial community on Facebook. As these pirate ships gain readers and influence they can become a threat to your legitimate channels, sinking your own intranet and stealing the social media treasure inside your enterprise. This article covers:

* What makes pirates set up their own forums and sites on the web
* Why some are successful in stealing influence
* What you can do to recapture your audiences

It will also form the basis of a talk I am giving at the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx next month month.

We have interviewed John Donovan and are looking for an interview with Shell on how you counterbalance his site internally with your own blogs and forums. The questions we will ask are:

• Donovan claims to have set up his site when the Tell Shell intranet site started censoring internal postings. Do employees have a legitimate forum on the intranet to discuss issues?
• How do you handle such an aggressive gripe site as http://royaldutchshellplc.cominternally? Do you monitor it or ignore it?
• What guidelines do you have in place about employees blogging online or using forums
• What advice would you give other companies that have just discovered they have a pirate intra net about their company?

Many thanks for your help.

2

3 Page

warm regards,

11 January 2011 19:18

From:
Sent: 11 January 2011 19:18
To:
Subject: Aside

I was doing a bit of research one of the links brought me to Shell’s favorite website www.royaldutchshellplc.com.

I was just wondering if you’d be willing to share why you seem to wear the target? My hope is that the story is one of amusement and lore as opposed to something more sinister.

Regards,

Shell Oil Company
One Shell Plaza, Room 626
Houston, TX 77002
United States of America

Tel:
Other Tel: Mobile
Email:

RESPONSE

From: 12 January 2011 09:22
Sent:
To:
Subject: RE: Aside

It’s a long story involving several pieces of litigation. Although he rightly says that we settled most of them in his favour, he was finally defeated in the high court hear, with the judge accusing him of forgery (something he conveniently omits from his website). I will give you more details next time I see you.

Regards

Shell Centre, London SE 1 7NA

Registered in England and Wales number 4366849

Registered Office: Shell Centre, London, SE1

Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR

The Hague, The Netherlands

Tel:
Fax:
Mobile:
Email:
Internet: http://www.shell.com

REFERENCES TO SHELL AGM

Shell Wikipedia Machinations

RELATED INFORMATION NOT SUPPLIED BY SHELL

Bluehost.com

Shell Appointments List Upstream Americas

CAS Logo

Live Chat discussion about Shell ‘dirty tricks unit’ carrying out covert activities on the Internet Apr 1st, 2008

LATEST EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH ROYAL DUTCH SHELL COMPANY SECRETARY MICHIEL BRANDJES PUBLISHED 28 MARCH 2008

John Donovan email to David Sanger Shell: 23 August 2007

Shell internal email dated 31 August 2007 using Abbreviated Surname

Simmons & Simmons letter to John Donovan: 5 September 2007

John Donovan email to Simmons & Simmons Shell lawyers: 08 September 2007

Alfred Donovan email to Michiel Brandjes, Royal Dutch Shell Plc Company Secretary: 10 September 2007

Email from Alfred Donovan to Keith Ruddock Shell: 12 September 2007 01.30

Simmons & Simmons letter to John Donovan: 12 September 2007

Email Alfred Donovan to Keith Ruddock Shell EP General Counsel: 13 September 2007 07:12

16 October 2007 Focal Point doc saying no code names used

Google Search 22 March 2010

Fluid

royaldutchshellplc.com and its sister websites royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, shell2004.com, shellshareholders.org, don-marketing.com and cybergriping.com are all owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia article: royaldutchshellplc.com

Leave a Reply