Correspondence with Shell General Counsel Richard Wiseman on authenticity of leaked Shell top secret contingency plans
Article by John Donovan
Monday 5 February 2007
We receive a fairly constant flow from Shell insiders of leaked confidential and often highly sensitive Royal Dutch Shell information, including emails, documents, reports and internal presentations. We have on occasion published a Shell internal email from Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer on the very day that he sent it.
Last week we received a communication from a Shell insider concerning "business continuity management" – a purported plan for Shell to continue its business activities in the event of a major disruption.
We are not talking about Shell executives retreating into their hardened bunkers in the event of a BP hostile takeover, nor the prospect of campaigners invading a Shell HQ building, as they once did at Shell-Mex House (barricading themselves into two senior management offices and the corporate library). We are not even talking about a serious, hopefully once off incident, such as the recent car bomb explosion at a Shell car park compound in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
The communication is in relation to contingency plans for a major emergency which cater for the fact, as indicated below, that oil company Country HQ offices are strategic targets. Hence they are likely to be targeted in case of war or incapacitated in the event of an attack on a City Center by terrorists, perhaps using weapons of mass destruction.
It follows that all major oil companies have to make business continuity plans. The issues raised in the communication we received are in regard to whether the needs, feelings and safety of Shell employees and their families are being properly taken into account. There are also claims of a "stern" reaction, and even disregard, when legitimate concerns have allegedly been expressed.
The following are extracts from the relevant communication. We have deleted the location information: -
Shell's disregard for personal safety
Shell’s management is following a flawed plan and disregarding its own safety policies. They have abused the trust given to them by their employees. Specifically, some of Shell's divisions have created a "business continuity management" office which purports to ensure the continuation of Shell's business.
While obviously important, Shell believes it can only achieve this goal by placing its employees and families in danger. Shell has established "emergency office locations" at remote regions (one at xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx) and at a suburb of London (xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx); both of these locations are considered far away from Shell's downtown headquarters.
During a stated emergency, employees are required to abandon their families and place themselves at risk by a forced attendance to these remote offices. The offices cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain and have been proven as a failure during several real crisis. Yet Shell’s management refuses to change plans. Some of us have tried to protest these policies but have also watched as dissenters have been dealt with sternly. We cannot stand idly by while our safety is so carelessly disregarded.
You are our last hope Mr Donovan. Please inquire with other Shell contacts and shed light on Shell's management disregard for our safety. And please protect our anonymity. We cannot afford to be without jobs.
As requested, we have discussed this matter with other Shell insiders. One said:
“The idea of having an alternative operating office to maintain continuity in the event of an attack on Shell Centre, One Shell Plaza, or the Hague is not new – it is widely accepted that oil company offices are strategic targets, and therefore likely to be attacked in case of war. In training exercises, fallback computer systems are also used, and standard procedures existed for flying (corporate jet) backup tapes from the Hague to Wythenshawe (and vv) so that in the event of an attack on a computing centre, the previous days’ backup image would be physically transported and loaded at the other site and available for online access throughout Shell within a few hours. In another approach, the main offices of NAM in Assen were deliberately given a very high profile in the hope that any attack would be made on the office, rather than the control room (bunker) from which the Groningen field was controlled, which was buried deep in the country… Maybe the same logic applies to Shell Centre, One Shell Plaza etc.”
Since this is a serious matter we decided that it was proper to contact Shell to try to establish if we were dealing with a hoax. Our correspondence with Shell International Petrol Company Limited General Counsel, Richard Wiseman, is published below. Location details have been deleted.
EMAIL TO SHELL INTERNATIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL RICHARD WISEMAN Thu 01/02/2007 09:23
Dear Mr Wiseman
I am sorry to be a nuisance by contacting you when this matter does not fall within your area of responsibility, but I do not know who is the appropriate person at Shell to deal with this matter.
The following are extracts from an email received today from a Shell insider. It seems proper under the circumstances to give Shell the opportunity to confirm or deny any of the information/allegations stated below. I would therefore be grateful if you would kindly pass the information to the appropriate person at Shell.
If you supply us with a contact for use in future correspondence, then we will not contact you again. I am sure the thought of no more correspondence from the Donovan’s will be pleasing.
Kind regards
JohnShell's disregard for personal safety
Shell’s management is following a flawed plan and disregarding its own safety policies. They have abused the trust given to them by their employees. Specifically, some of Shell's divisions have created a "business continuity management" office which purports to ensure the continuation of Shell's business.
While obviously important, Shell believes it can only achieve this goal by placing its employees and families in danger. Shell has established "emergency office locations" at remote regions (one at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) and at a suburb of London (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX); both of these locations are considered far away from Shell's downtown headquarters.
During a stated emergency, employees are required to abandon their families and place themselves at risk by a forced attendance to these remote offices. The offices cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain and have been proven as a failure during several real crisis. Yet Shell’s management refuses to change plans. Some of us have tried to protest these policies but have also watched as dissenters have been dealt with sternly. We cannot stand idly by while our safety is so carelessly disregarded.
EMAIL RESPONSE FROM MR WISEMAN Thu 01/02/2007 10:51
Dear Mr Donovan
This is a challenge as I expect that different people are responsible for each location. I will pass this on to those I think should know about the message.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
General Counsel M & A and Project Finance
FURTHER EMAIL RESPONSE FROM MR WISEMAN Fri 02/02/2007 08:42
Dear Mr Donovan
I have discussed this with those concerned. You will appreciate that some of the circumstances in which our Business Continuity Plans might be brought into operation could involve criminal or even terrorist activity directed against us. It would be inappropriate therefore to engage in a public dialogue about them.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
General Counsel M & A and Project Finance
EMAIL TO MR WISEMAN 02 February 2007 08:54
Dear Mr Wiseman
I take it from your response that this information is genuine (not a hoax) and will publish an article on that basis. It will not reveal the address in XXXXXXXXXXXX or mention of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, as this would not be appropriate. I appreciate you taking the trouble to reply.
Regards
John
EMAIL RESPONSE FROM MR WISEMAN Fri 02/02/2007 08:59
Dear Mr Donovan
For the reasons I set out in my previous email, I can't say whether the information is true or not.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
General Counsel M & A and Project Finance
EMAIL TO MR WISEMAN 02 February 2007 09:29
Dear Mr Wiseman
If someone was trying to perpetrate a hoax, I feel confident that you would have said so, as it would not entail revealing anything which would compromise your Business Continuity Plans, which of course every major oil company has, bearing in mind that oil company HQ offices qualify as strategic targets. It would be possible to discuss the impact on Shell employees and their families as raised in the insider email without revealing any details whatsoever of your plans. Shell has chosen not to do so. We will leave it to our readers to draw their own conclusions.
Yours sincerely
John
EMAIL RESPONSE FROM MR WISEMAN Fri 02/02/2007 09:33
Dear Mr Donovan
In matters of security, it is sensible neither to confirm nor deny material of this sort, as you well know. The decision as to whether to publish, and what comment you make on it, is, as ever, yours. But neither you nor your readers should draw conclusions one way or the other from our not commenting.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
General Counsel M & A and Project Finance
This is what a Shell insider said after reading the emails from Mr Wiseman.
Richard has has a point, but I’m not sure whether it’s valid – my suspicion is that the individual concerned should focus more on why backup locations are required – i.e. is Shell Center or One Shell Plaza so insecure that in an emergency the senior people would be evacuated (because that is what would happen in practice), leaving the minions to take their chances in the large “public” buildings? It should be apparent that the continuity plans do not involve every single member of Shell’s staff, as this would require a facility of a similar size to the one being evacuated… It is very reminiscent of the Sept. 11th 2001 events when Cheney and Bush went into hiding at “undisclosed locations”, not that anyone would ever accuse Shell’s management of delusions of grandeur…
We have published the correspondence so that our readers can draw their own conclusions.
With regard to the Shell insider who contacted us on this matter, it would be helpful in understanding the issues if you could provide a more detailed explanation of your concerns. Please use the same email address as in your initial communication.
For those wishing to use secure forms of transmission of comments or to supply us with insider information, you may wish to check out http://www.anonymousspeech.com or the new service for whistleblowers at: http://wikileaks.org/