EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH RICHARD WISEMAN, CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, NOVEMBER 2008:

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY & GENERAL COUNSEL CORPORATE, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 11 November 2008

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>

To: "michiel.brandjes@shell.com" <michiel.brandjes@shell.com>
Cc: <peter.voser@shell.com>, <linda.cook@shell.com>, "jorma.ollila@shell.com" <jorma.ollila@shell.com>, <malcolm.brinded@shell.com>, <jeroen.vanderveer@shell.com>, "Wiseman, Richard RM SI-LSUK" <richard.wiseman@shell.com>, <rob.routs@shell.com>, <beat.hess@shell.com>

Conversation: Shell, Saudi Arabia, Arms-for-Oil, Corruption, & Radioactive Contamination
Subject: Shell, Saudi Arabia, Arms-for-Oil, Corruption, & Radioactive Contamination

Dear Mr Brandjes

I have supplied below a draft article relating to the former Shell Terminal/Depot at Earley, Reading in Berkshire and related matters.

We will happily publish unedited any comments or statement Shell may wish to make. If Shell specifically states that any stated fact within the article, the related www.rayfox.info webpage, or the draft email to UK Members of Parliament is untrue, we will either remove or amend the relevant information, or include Shell’s categorical denial.  Shell is also invited to challenge the authenticity of any quoted or linked document, whether declassified document or otherwise.

Kindly supply within two working days any standard rebuttal you wish to provide as you have in the past. If you want more time to investigate before providing a substantive response – an invitation you have taken up on occasion, there will be no problem even if you understandably need a couple of weeks in view of the complexity and range of matters covered. We are, as always, more interested in accuracy than publishing an article before Shell has had a reasonable opportunity to respond, particularly when dealing with sensitive issues. I doubt any other publisher is as fair or as accommodating as we are in such matters.   

Although some sections containing extracts may be moved to linked web pages, the overall text will remain as per the draft subject to any amendments or additions arising from any response from Shell.

I am sure you will understand that if there is no response of any kind by close of business on 12 November 2008, we will assume Shell accepts the information stated as fact is correct and also accepts the authenticity of the quoted or linked documents and we will say so in the article. Versions of the article will be published on several websites including royaldutchshellplc.com and on a USA news website.

The Ray Fox email will be sent individually to over 600 MP’s subject to his authorisation.

We will also draw the attention of the news media to the entire matter. An earlier similar initiative in respect of Shell’s appalling “TFA” safety record on North Sea Platforms resulted in two Channel 4 News reports by Jon Snow and two newspaper articles.

Best Regards
John Donovan
RoyalDutchShellPlc.com

cc.
Shell executive directors
Persimmon Homes (Sent separately)
Wokingham District Council (Sent separately)

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO MICHIEL BRANDJES, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 12 November 2008

Dear Mr Brandjes

Since you have not responded to my email of 10 November 2008 we will, without further notice to Shell, publish the relevant draft article with the following preface:

Because of the extremely serious nature and scope of the issues covered in this article, it was supplied in advance to Mr Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. Copies were also supplied to all of the executive directors of Royal Dutch Shell Plc and to Shell senior in-house lawyers, Group Legal Director Beat Hess and Richard Wiseman, General Counsel of Shell International.

Mr Brandjes and Mr Wiseman have also had advance sight of this preface.

Whenever we have previously supplied draft articles to Shell, Mr Brandjes or his colleagues have without exception pointed out when they take issue with the accuracy of what is stated in relation to Shell and have advised us when an item supplied to us by a third party was a forgery (an alleged email from Shell executive director David Greer). Naturally we did not publish the email.

It can be safely assumed by the reader under the circumstances that Shell does not in this case take issue with ANY of the stated facts, nor does it challenge the authenticity of ANY of the cited declassified documents, or any other cited documents.

EMAIL FROM RICHARD WISEMAN TO JOHN DONOVAN: 12 November 2008

On 12/11/2008 21:59, "richard.wiseman@shell.com" <richard.wiseman@shell.com> wrote:

We have repeatedly said that no inference should be drawn from our not commenting specifically on any allegation. This continues to be true.
Regards

Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
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

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN, CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 13 November 2008

Dear Mr Wiseman

I am sure that like me, Mr Fox will be less than amused to note your new title. Once again a fox is put in charge of the henhouse.

You are the person who gave fundamentally false information to Mr Fox as pointed out in the draft article. You were also the author of the snide comment about his “horticultural problems”. In fact the Shell sourced radioactive/toxic contamination from the leaking drain was killing the trees and according to experts, also poisoning the Fox family.

Your record in dealing with us is equally shameful. I have your various emails confirming the use of an undercover agent, Mr Christopher Phillips, who used a fake company, fake documents, a fake telephone number and a fake cover story when he visited our offices and was caught red-handed examining private mail. It was only after we retained a private investigator to investigate your undercover agent that you and the senior partner of Kendall Freeman (Colin Joseph) were cornered into admitting the truth. Even then, Joseph continued with the intimidation by revealing that other “enquiry” agents were working on our case. He refused to disclose what they were doing.

This all happened at a time when we were besieged by undercover operatives and sinister thugs. You will recall for example the investigation by the Police into the series of burglaries carried out at the home of our solicitor, Richard Woodman, the residence of a key witness, Roger Sotherton and at our own home, in the run up to the High Court Trial. One of the burglars found and no doubt copied a document that Colin Joseph had vowed to obtain even after a Judge had ruled that Shell was not entitled to see it.

Despite all of the sinister events, including intimidation of witnesses, Shell did not reveal to the Police its close connection with Hakluyt & Company Limited which was engaged at that time on behalf of Shell in exactly the kind of sleazy covert operations which were directed at us. As is pointed out in the draft article, titled Shell Transport directors were the ultimate spymasters at Hakluyt (and major shareholders in the spy firm).

Correspondence also reveals your role along with Jyoti Munsiff and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart in a conspiracy to prevent important information from reaching Shell Transport shareholders in relation to the infamous “Funding Deed”.  I have your letter and the associated letters from your co-conspirators.

At the time when you were Legal Director of Shell UK Limited you represented Shell in the High Court at the climax of my cross examination by Geoffrey Hobbs QC. As you will recall, the court was deceived into believing that a motorbike messenger was on route from Sainsbury’s with documentary evidence relating to my testimony – the implication being that it would prove that I had forged a key document. If fact, it was all a total fabrication, there was no messenger, no motorbike and no documentary evidence – none whatsoever.  

You were also aware of the evidence I uncovered of a conspiracy to cheat and defraud companies participating in a Shell tender process for a major contract. I unearthed all of the Shell documents which provided irrefutable evidence of an evil premeditated plot in which AJL was the mastermind. The contract was miraculously awarded to a company which had not even participated in the tender. This was akin to a horse winning a race in which it did not run. AJL happened to have a personal relationship with the directors of that agency to which all contracts were funnelled irrespective of which agency had originated proposals. Business ideas were stolen not just from me, but from other agencies such as Senior King. Despite having this evidence brought to your attention and to the attention of more senior colleagues such as Malcolm Brinded, Shell directors did not withdraw the backing for AJL which he was able to claim in his witness statement.

Shell decided to settle the court case at the climax of the cross-examination of AJL when the subject of his offshore bank account was about to be raised. Shell paid my legal costs. I also received a secret payment. You admitted in our last correspondence that not all of the settlement papers were put before the Judge. Like Shell shareholders, Shell employees, the media and the public, the Judge was kept in the dark. A so called “joint press statement” gave a false account of the settlement. You were the key Shell official responsible for that cover-up sanctioned by Moody-Stuart.

As for the draft article, I note there is not a single categorical denial of any statement of fact or any challenge over the authenticity of any cited document. I will make this plain in a revised introduction.

Quite frankly, given your track record it is disgraceful that you have been appointed to the position of Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It must be because Machiavelli is unavailable.

Yours sincerely
John Donovan

EMAIL FROM RICHARD WISEMAN TO JOHN DONOVAN: 13 November 2008

On 13/11/2008 11:51, "richard.wiseman@shell.com" <richard.wiseman@shell.com> wrote:

Dear Mr Donovan.

It is only because you know that I am utterly incapable of arranging the actions you ascribe to me, that you repeatedly accuse me of things of which you know I am completely innocent, safe in the believe that I would take no action.

As to Mr Fox, the following is relevant:.

1.  There seems to be only one doctor who has attributed his condition to exposure to radiation.  This has not been confirmed by any other doctor despite the years Fox has been making his allegations.  I assume he has consulted other doctors in the meantime.

2.  None of his neighbours adjoining the former Shell site has made a similar complaint or seems to be suffering from the same symptoms.

3.  He has at various times complained to public authorities including:

• the local  authority;  
• his MP;  
• the EU; and  
• the Environment  Agency.
  

but seems to have refused allow them independently to conduct the tests and examinations which might have proved or disproved his allegations - we always undertook to cooperate if they did so.

4.  In 2006 Mr Fox issued proceedings.  They were eventually dismissed because he would not or could not give sufficient information about his claim.  The court repeatedly allowed him extra time to do so even though he has been making his assertions for many years and claims to have the support of various experts.

5.  The allegations about Shell's involvement in nuclear and atomic research are dealt with in my letter of the 16th March 2004 which is entirely consistent with all the information you quote.  There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by Mr Fox and others about the nature of the research Shell has been involved in and that which it is claimed was carried out at the site, or elsewhere.

We have never accepted or rejected the idea that Mr Fox has been ill.  Had his proceedings continued we would of course had the opportunity to ask for an independent medical examination.  We know of no scientific or medical evidence support the idea that any illness from which Mr Fox suffers was caused by any activity carried on by Shell.

 
Regards
Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
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

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com <http://www.shell.com/>  

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN, CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 13 November 2008 19.05

Dear Mr Wiseman

Thank you for your response.

Please be advised that I will be replying in detail as it is clear from what you say in your first paragraph that I need to clarify what actions I ascribe to you, as opposed to actions taken by others at Shell or by an unknown party.  

I will of course also respond to your points in relation to Mr Fox.

Until this correspondence is concluded I will not publish the relevant article or any further associated correspondence.

Yours sincerely
John Donovan

EMAIL FROM RICHARD WISEMAN TO JOHN DONOVAN: 14 November 2008 11.23

Dear Mr Donovan,

I doubt if we will change each other's minds about the history of our dealings with each other.  However, when considering Mr Fox's complaints, you should bear in mind that a letter from the EU to Mr Fox states:

"Both the results (of tests conducted) reported by the Environment Agency and in the ECAL reports are below the clearance levels (levels below which the effect of trace amounts of radionuclides on human health is considered as negligible). It would thus not seem appropriate to carry out a detailed survey, in view of the rather low activity concentrations that have been found.
 
“However in order to reach definitive conclusions the Environment Agency would need to carry out an investigation, which of course would require your co-operation.

Regards

Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
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

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com <http://www.shell.com/>  

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN, CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 24 November 2008 00.59

Dear Mr Wiseman

A reply letter is attached.

Regards
John Donovan

The attached letter...

LETTER FROM JOHN DONOVAN, 24 NOVEMBER 2008

ATTENTION MR RICHARD WISEMAN

CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

SHELL CENTRE

LONDON SE1 7NA

Dear Mr Wiseman,

Thank you for your emails dated 13 & 14 November 2008.

The most notable aspect of your replies is not the issues you have chosen to comment on, but rather the related serious matters, which you completely ignored.

If I was Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, famed as you are for “straight-talking”, I would ideally have liked to be in a position to issue a withering reply along the following lines:

Mr Donovan what you have stated is utter fantasy. Shell has never been involved in any “oil-for-arms” agreement; there have been no Shell secret agreements with the UK Atomic Energy Authority or the Ministry of Defence; titled Shell directors were never simultaneously directors and major shareholders in Shell Transport and the spy firm Hakluyt & Company Limited; Hakluyt has never engaged on behalf of Shell in undercover operations directed against any third parties; the claimed declassified documents are all forgeries; Shell national manager AJL never masterminded a rigged Shell tender where the contract was awarded to a company never in the race, nor did he receive the full support of senior Shell management as you falsely allege.

http://www.legalweek.com/Navigation/18/Articles/1143876/In-house+Lawyer+The+power+of+straight+talking.html

Unfortunately for Shell you are unable to shoot down my statements or deny the authenticity of related documents because the comments are provable fact and the documents 100% genuine. Hence all you can do is create some diversionary fog and pretend the matters have not been mentioned.

You could have addressed other important issues by providing a straightforward response saying for example, “I can tell you categorically Mr Donovan that Shell has never engaged in any activity in the UK which has created any nuclear contamination and there is no bunker buried at the former Shell terminal in Earley”.

The fact that no such response was forthcoming speaks volumes.

I note you were sufficiently concerned to take the step of digging out a reference by the EU to tests carried out by the UK Environment Agency. Mr Fox rightly points out that the Environmental Agency is hardly an impartial party. You may recall the front-page article published by The Independent revealing that the Environmental Agency has invested £18 million in Shell.

Some extracts:

“The Environment Agency, which is in charge of flood protection, has invested £64m in oil firms which have been condemned for contributing to flooding by causing climate change. Last year the agency's pension fund invested £46m in BP Amoco – its largest holding – and £18m in Shell. Both firms have been fined large sums by the agency for polluting water with petrol or oil products.”

“Friends of the Earth said it was a "scandal" that the body charged with protecting Britain's environment had a financial interest in companies which pollute.”

“A Labour MP said it was "inconceivable" that the Environment Agency should not pursue an ethical investment policy which ruled out the purchase of shares in companies it investigates.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/governments-green-agency-invests-millions-in-companies-that-pollute-6127

Mr Fox has an abundance of medical and other reports supporting his claim, much more than I have published. I have never come across a Shell scandal where so many eminent professionals – numerous doctors and professors - have been quoted. The strongest criticism against the Fox claim was made in an article by Dr Richard Wakefield published after the broadcast of the BBC programme: “The Bunker”. Dr Wakefield neglected to declare in his article that he is Principle Research Scientist of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd - the expert often trotted out by BNF in the case of actual or potential claims against BNF and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, your partner in secret nuclear projects.

Independent experts such as Dr Christopher Busby, the radiation scientist who conducted tests on behalf of the BBC, take a decidedly different view. His professional credentials are impressive to say the least.

http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/WolvesofWater2DrBusby2006.pdf

It was predictable that parties standing to lose financially (on a massive scale) roundly denigrated the allegations by Fox. This included the Environmental Agency, Local Government, Berkshire NHS Trust and the alleged main culprit, Shell. There is no doubt, considerable concern over the possible financial consequences from alleged Leukaemia clusters in the area, particularly if the source (as some experts apparently believe), is the Shell terminal on which planning consent was given for a Persimmon Homes housing estate, despite the misgivings expressed at the time.

The dire effects of radioactive contamination were most dramatic in the case of Mr Fox because he actually came into direct contact with a contaminated black tarry substance from the defective drain, which Shell paid to repair. You may recall your eagerness to secure an “all claims” settlement at the time. Why did it need to be on an “all claims” basis if there were no further potential problems of concern to you and your employer?

The relevant legal authorities terminated the “Ray Fox and Others” High Court action following applications by Shell. As I have previously pointed out, Mr Fox was unwell and had been bankrupted on dubious grounds. His bankruptcy was used by Shell to frustrate his attempt to reach the discovery stage. If Shell had allowed the proceedings to reach the stage where expert opinions were exchanged, you would not now be raising the subject of scientific and medical evidence.

If you want to demonstrate that, contrary to perception, Shell is a compassionate company that wants to treat Mr Fox fairly, you could offer to co-operate in resurrecting the legal action as a test case and fund his legal costs. As you are aware, there is precedence for the latter. The case would then be decided on merit. If Shell decided on this course of action we would not publish the article and would await the outcome of the court proceedings.

Alternatively, Mr Fox may be willing to exchange discovery documents/evidence with Shell as if the litigation was still in progress. This would require the co-operation of the UKAEA. You would then see all existing scientific and medical documents/reports in the possession or control of Mr Fox and he would be able to see the documents in which he is intently interested, including the licence obtained to process radioactive materials at the Shell Earley terminal.

I now turn to the surprising opening paragraph of your email dated 13 November where you stated:

“It is only because you know that I am utterly incapable of arranging the actions you ascribe to me, that you repeatedly accuse me of things of which you know I am completely innocent, safe in the believe that I would take no action.”

It must be nice to have such a high opinion of your self - but is that vanity justified?

Is it correct as you imply that I am completely safe against legal retribution? Why should that be the case? Shell is not short of resources, being worth over $200 billion and having a 700 plus army of in-house lawyers. Shell would surely be in breach of its fiduciary duty to shareholders if it failed to sue me and\or the website for libel if any comment directed against you as a very senior officer of the company, or against Shell, is untrue. You also have a personal right to sue on the same basis if grounds genuinely exist. Shell, or yourself, could sue me for defamation in the UK where I am a citizen, or in the USA where the website is hosted.

Your comment implies that we enjoy prosecution immunity from Shell in relation to defamation laws. Is this because of a lingering affection for us after 28 years of contact, or is it due to the volume of evidence of serious misdeeds by Shell we have accumulated over latter years, including sensitive and incriminating Shell internal documents.

The apparent prosecution immunity is in line with a written statement given to The World Intellectual Property Organisation by Shell International Petroleum Company Limited in May 1995, saying in reference to our website RoyalDutchShellPlc.com:

“The... Group... have been aware of the site since the beginning and whilst they would not endorse or agree with many of the comments made by the Respondent on the website, they have taken the view that the Respondent is entitled to express his opinions and to use the Internet as a medium for doing so."

Further evidence of our apparent prosecution immunity from a Shell libel action comes from the draconian defamation case collectively brought against the former Shell production geologist Dr John Huong by EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group. As you are aware, the action is in respect of alleged defamatory comments published on our website in June 2004. We wrote to the High Court Judge in Malaysia (and to Shell) within days of the proceedings being issued informing him that the alleged defamatory passages cited by Shell were authored by us, not by Dr Huong. Despite our admission, Shell proceeded to bury Dr Huong in multiple injunctions, including threatening him with imprisonment for alleged contempt of court. The case is now dragging on into its fifth year without even reaching the discovery stage. In the meantime, Dr Huong has been unable to obtain a job while the litigation cloud hangs over the heads of him and his family. Shell’s failure to prosecute the case on a timely basis is a gross breach of the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights that Shell purports to support.

Perhaps Shell has granted us immunity from libel laws as a reward for treating the company so fairly. As Michiel Brandjes will confirm, we did not publish an article when he politely asked us not to do on special grounds. As recently as 30 October 2008, we did not publish another article. Its author had sent a draft to Peter Voser and other Shell executives. It was intelligently and competently written but we deemed the content inappropriate for publication. We also routinely give Shell the opportunity to consider draft articles and supply related comment for publication on an unedited basis and to point out any categorically untrue allegations. No other publisher treats Shell so fairly.

Have you granted us immunity because Shell recognises the “unofficial” Shell website fulfils a genuine need? In this regard, we were delighted to recently receive an unsolicited email from Shell Ethiopian employees praising the website for assisting their cause and helping to bring about a settlement of their legal action alleging Shell was selling its Ethiopian employees like slaves.

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/11/14/shell-ethiopia-employees-express-thanks-for-help-in-settlement-of-dispute/

We also provide a useful service to the mainstream news media, for example making our Shell sources available to the Financial Times in relation to the article published last week about a high level re-organisation at Shell.

However, if we are wrong in interpreting Shell’s actions as granting us immunity from defamation laws in the way described, please advise us accordingly so there is no misunderstanding. Conflicts can arise from misunderstandings.

My further comments to expand, or when appropriate, clarify which of my earlier remarks relate to you personally, as opposed to Shell or an unknown party, are inset under each paragraph, extracted from my email of 13 November.

FIRST COMMENT: You are the person who gave fundamentally false information to Mr Fox as pointed out in the draft article. You were also the author of the snide comment about his “horticultural problems”. In fact the Shell sourced radioactive/toxic contamination from the leaking drain was killing the trees and according to experts, also poisoning the Fox family.

Your assertion that your comments are “consistent with all the Information you quote” does not stack up with the revelations in the declassified documents and other information which has come to light concerning the scope of Shell’s involvement in nuclear research and the nuclear industry. However readers of the article and associated exhibits will be able to draw their own conclusion.

SECOND COMMENT: Your record in dealing with us is equally shameful. I have your various emails confirming the use of an undercover agent, Mr Christopher Phillips, who used a fake company, fake documents, a fake telephone number, and a fake cover story when he visited our offices, and was caught red-handed examining private mail. It was only after we retained a private investigator to investigate your undercover agent that you and the senior partner of Kendall Freeman (Colin Joseph) were cornered into admitting the truth. Even then, Joseph continued with the intimidation by revealing that other “enquiry” agents were working on our case. He refused to disclose what they were doing.

I complained at the time to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors that despite being aware of the other sinister events taking place (I informed you at length about them) you did not disclose the actions of “Phillips” until cornered into so doing. I will publish the relevant correspondence. You never disassociated yourself from the intimidating comments made by Colin Joseph on behalf of Shell that other so called “enquiry agents” were engaged in undisclosed activities involving us.

THIRD COMMENT: This all happened at a time when we were besieged by undercover operatives and sinister thugs. You will recall, for example, the investigation by the Police into the series of burglaries carried out at the home of our solicitor, Richard Woodman, the residence of a key witness, Roger Sotherton, and at our own home, in the run up to the High Court Trial. One of the burglars found, and no doubt copied, a document that Colin Joseph had vowed to obtain even after a Judge had ruled Shell was not entitled to see it.

I have always accepted your denial of any personal knowledge or involvement in any of the other sinister events. I did not accuse you in the comment above of being personally involved.

FOURTH COMMENT: Despite all of the sinister events, including intimidation of witnesses, Shell did not reveal to the Police its close connection with Hakluyt & Company Limited which was engaged, at that time, on behalf of Shell in exactly the kind of sleazy covert operations which were directed at us. As is pointed out in the draft article, titled Shell Transport directors were the ultimate spymasters at Hakluyt (and major shareholders in the spy firm).

This comment was directed at “Shell” as a company not you personally. I do not know what knowledge you had about Hakluyt. The fact that the relevant Shell Transport directors were also directors of Hakluyt, was stated in the Shell Transport accounts. This means other directors of the company, including Mark Moody-Stuart, would have been well aware of the connection. Hakluyt was used by Shell at that time, for the type of sleazy undercover activities directed at us. It surely is no great leap of logic to speculate that at a very high level, Shell decided that we deserved the same treatment. As you may recall, the relationship was sufficiently heated for Shell to put posters on display at the Shell Centre making libellous comments about us. Indeed, we sued Shell for defamation. A claim later settled by Shell. A further indication of the extraordinary level of acrimony was the personal intervention of Lady Judy Moody-Stuart on behalf of her husband, Mark, Chairman and Managing Director of Shell.

Our later truly bizarre correspondence with Christopher James, the former/current senior officer of MI6 is self-explanatory.

http://www.shell2004.com/P15.html DFs/FaxAEDtoHakluyt2June2004.pdf

http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/HakluytLettertoAlfDonovan8June2004.pdf

http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/AEDFaxtoHakluyt8June2004.pdf

An article published in 1991 about the CIA and corporate spying is of interest bearing in mind the identity of one of its authors.

http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1991/b323564.arc.htm

FIFTH COMMENT: Correspondence also reveals your role along with Jyoti Munsiff and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, in a conspiracy to prevent important information from reaching Shell Transport shareholders in relation to the infamous “Funding Deed”. I have your letter and the associated letters from your co-conspirators.

The correspondence was in fact with Jyoti Munsiff and Mark Moody-Stuart. Your involvement was mentioned in both letters. It was clear from Jyoti Munsiff that you and she reviewed and discussed relevant documents before jointly deciding that if we did disclose relevant secret information to Shell shareholders or directors, we would be in breach of confidentiality terms. Munsiff sent copies of the letter to you and Mark Moody-Stuart. Moody-Stuart went as far as issuing a threat against us in his own letter: an unusual course of action for the Chairman and Managing Director of Shell. I would imagine such distasteful matters are normally left to Shell lawyers.

The following is a self-explanatory extract from my reply to the letter from Moody-Stuart:

“I note that you have read the letter from Miss Munsiff. As a Shell shareholder (and founder of the Shell Shareholders Organisation) I am staggered at the response. We now have permission to circulate the relevant information to your fellow directors. This is despite the concerted efforts made by Shell’s lawyers (over a period of several months) initially to stop us providing you on a formal basis with information which you already had, and subsequently, to prevent the information being disclosed to your colleagues. Yet you are not prepared for the same information to be supplied, even on a confidential basis, to the people who actually own the company - your shareholders. Your decision to keep company members in the dark speaks absolute volumes. So much for the core principle of “openness”. When it comes to the crunch, covering-up a catalogue of misdeeds by Shell managers, despite incontrovertible evidence of flagrant breaches of the principles of honesty and integrity, apparently takes priority.”

http://www.shellnews.net/2004%20Documents/letters/lettertomarkmoodystuart1april98.pdf

http://www.shellnews.net/2004%20Documents/letters/letterfromshelltransportcompanysec6april98.pdf

http://www.shellnews.net/2004%20Documents/letters/letterfrommarkmoodystuart6april1998.pdf

http://www.shellnews.net/2004%20Documents/letters/letterfromjohndonovantoMoody-Stuart14april98.htm

It is interesting to note that while, on the one hand, the Shell top executive and officials were desperately trying to silence us, you, Mr Wiseman, were simultaneously meeting with journalists and disclosing documents to them e.g. your meeting at Shell-Mex House on 24 April 1998 with Tom O’Sullivan of Marketing Week Magazine (see my letter to you dated 29 April 1998). You and Colin Joseph of Kendall Freeman, later had a meeting at Shell Mex House with Simon Rines, the journalist representing The Guardian newspaper. Such was the sensitivity of the interview that both sides - Shell and the journalist - tape-recorded every word. During the course of that extraordinary interview, you gave sight of the top secret “Funding Deed” to Rines, despite previously issuing warnings to us about disclosing the content of the same document. Under the circumstances, the act by a Shell Director (as you then were) of disclosing the terms the Funding Deed to a journalist was hypocritical and devious.

SIXTH COMMENT: At the time, when you were Legal Director of Shell UK Limited, you represented Shell in the High Court at the climax of my cross examination by Geoffrey Hobbs QC. As you will recall, the court was deceived into believing that a motorbike messenger was on route from Sainsbury’s with documentary evidence relating to my testimony – the implication being that it would prove that I had forged a key document. If fact, it was all a total fabrication, there was no messenger, no motorbike and no documentary evidence – none whatsoever.

You have never indicated whether you had advance knowledge or involvement in the disgraceful ambush and deception. You certainly have not taken the opportunity to distance yourself from what happened. I have a complete transcript of the trial, which includes the extraordinary events mentioned above and the comments made by the Sir Hugh Laddie QC, then known as Mr Justice Laddie. By coincidence or otherwise, he resigned in controversial circumstances some time after my father wrote to Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, complaining about alleged blatantly biased behaviour displayed by Mr Justice Laddie, and also asking why he had failed to disclose a commercial connection with the barrister son of Mark Moody-Stuart. Laddie also failed to disclose that potential conflict of interest. You have, of course, also had a commercial relationship with Laddie. Professor Sir Hugh Laddie QC as he is now known, works as a consultant to an IP law firm founded by a long-term friend, Tony Willoughby of Willoughby & Partners (now known as Chambers & Partners), who had Shell as a client at the time of the trial (and still boasts of having Shell as a client).

The following is a current extract from their website:

Sebastien L van Roosmalen, Associate General Counsel, Shell International (Gas & Power Europe)

“I do consult Chambers, particularly when seeking outside counsel in a country in which we haven't an established business.”

SEVENTH COMMENT: You were also aware of the evidence I uncovered of a conspiracy to cheat and defraud companies participating in a Shell tender process for a major contract. I unearthed all of the Shell documents that provided irrefutable evidence of an evil premeditated plot in which AJL was the mastermind. The contract was miraculously awarded to a company which had not even participated in the tender. This was akin to a horse winning a race in which it did not run. AJL happened to have a personal relationship with the directors of that agency to which all contracts were funnelled irrespective of which agency had originated proposals. Business ideas were stolen not just from me, but from other agencies such as Senior King. Despite having this evidence brought to your attention and to the attention of more senior colleagues such as Malcolm Brinded, Shell directors did not withdraw the backing for AJL which he was able to claim in his witness statement.

I have all of the Shell internal documents including AJL handwritten notes and correspondence internal and external proving that his colleagues and line manager were in on his dastardly plan to deceive and cheat companies pitching for the SMART contract. I brought all of this to the attention of Shell lawyers and to Shell directors, including Brinded and Moody-Stuart. All turned a blind eye despite all the hypocritical rhetoric about fighting corruption. I note that you are still failing to comment on what happened.

EIGHTH COMMENT: Shell decided to settle the court case at the climax of the cross-examination of AJL when the subject of his offshore bank account was about to be raised. Shell paid my legal costs. I also received a secret payment. You admitted in our last correspondence that not all of the settlement papers were put before the Judge. Like Shell shareholders, Shell employees, the media and the public, the Judge was kept in the dark. A so called “joint press statement” gave a false account of the settlement. You were the key Shell official responsible for that cover-up sanctioned by Moody-Stuart.

I retain all of the relevant documents including the diaries of AJL revealing his offshore bank account and close personal relationship with the directors of the agency, which scooped all business ideas disclosed to Shell in confidence by other companies. Option One was miraculously awarded projects that they did not originate or propose e.g. every idea we disclosed in confidence to AJL - all ended up being handed on a plate to Option One including SMART and the proposal to rerun the Make Money promotion.

NINTH COMMENT: As for the draft article, I note there is not a single categorical denial of any statement of fact or any challenge over the authenticity of any cited document. I will make this plain in a revised introduction.

There is still no detailed rebuttal, just aspersions over the medical condition of Mr Fox. Your position in this regard would be on better moral ground if you had shown interest at the time when Mr Fox was taken seriously ill and treated for radiation poisoning in Germany by a specialist, Dr Kees. I will not repeat the assertions made by Mr Fox about your alleged lack of human decency and compassion towards him and his family.

TENTH COMMENT: Quite frankly, given your track record it is disgraceful that you have been appointed to the position of Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It must be because Machiavelli is unavailable.

We have of course crossed swords many times with you over many years and give you credit for being more candid and efficient than most of your colleagues. It is out of respect for you that we have always accepted your word when you have made a categorical statement of fact, for example denying any personal knowledge of undercover operations against us, other than the mission carried out by the agent known as “Christopher Phillips”. We do not believe there would have been any reserves fraud if you had risen to the very top of Shell.

At the same time we also take the view that your opinions and actions have been corrupted, not in monetary terms, but by power and prestige, and out of loyalty to the ruthless oil giant where you have worked for over 33 years. Your record, as shown in our correspondence and dealings with you for almost half your years with Shell, indicates the Machiavelli tag is well justified. Your actions on behalf of Shell do not tally with the high moral tone projected in your recent speech against corruption.

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/11/20/anti-corruption-speech-by-richard-wiseman-royal-dutch-shell-plc-chief-ethics-compliance-officer/

I will assemble your letters and emails to us and publish it all so that others can judge whether you are in fact a hypocrite. One amusing example of your hypocrisy (and vanity) was when you rubbished our website and then subsequently provided us with an updated photograph of yourself after we became the most informative and visited “Shell” website on the planet. To be fair, it is an excellent photograph. I am less sure about the photograph in legalweek.com.

The Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer role seems to be the position where faithful veteran retainers, who have personal knowledge of Shell dirty laundry (the numerous skeleton’s rattling away in the corporate cupboard), are rewarded with the prestigious sounding job as a pre-retirement perk, to boost ego and buy continued silence. This tradition was kicked off with the appointment of your predecessor Jyoti Munsiff.

Personally, I would like to see you surprise Shell executives by actually enforcing the principles of honesty, integrity and openness proclaimed in Shell’s business principles instead of just making a speech laden with PR claims, which have no relationship to the reality of Shell’s record. You could start by intervening in the Dr John Huong and Ray Fox scandals. I shall not however hold my breath awaiting any such transformation.

Moody-Stuart once said that Shell should expect to be judged by its deeds, not by rhetoric. For once we agree with him.

Subject to any further response from Shell we will publish the article plus all associated correspondence with Shell and commence circulation of a revised Ray Fox email to MP’s.

Regards,

John Donovan

EMAIL FROM RICHARD WISEMAN TO JOHN DONOVAN: 24 November 2008 14.02

On 24/11/2008 14:02, "richard.wiseman@shell.com" <richard.wiseman@shell.com> wrote:

Dear Mr Donovan,

The points made by you and Mr Fox have been dealt with in the past.  No new allegations are made which merit reply.  As always, you may not assume that silence amounts to acceptance of any of the allegations.

If Mr Fox's evidence is as compelling as you and he suggest, I recommend that he instructs a firm of competent firm of specialist solicitors on a "No Win, No Fee" basis.

For the record I can confirm that Shell has never engaged in any activity in the UK which has created nuclear contamination and there is no bunker at the former Shell terminal in Early - nor has there ever been.  

I exclude from this confirmation contamination from minor incidents such as, hypothetically,  the disposal in ordinary waste of a smoke detector, but I assume that this is not what you have in mind and I can assure you that these exceptions would never have represented the material risk you and Mr Fox are complaining of.

There is of course no immunity from suit for you or any of our other detractors and neither you, nor anyone who repeats what you say, should assume otherwise.

Finally, the reference to "Chambers" by Mr van Roosmalen was to a professional directory of that name, not the organisation you have in mind with which it has, so far as I know, no connection.
Regards

Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
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

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com <http://www.shell.com/>  

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 24 November 2008 17.40

From: John Donovan
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-LMAPF
Cc: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC; Hess, Beat W RDS-ECBH; Raymond Fox
Sent: Mon Nov 24 17:40:18 2008
Subject: Re: MR RAY FOX
Dear Mr Wiseman

I am sure Mr Fox will be grateful for the impartial advice on how best to proceed with a claim against Shell.

We have little choice but to assume that your silence on important issues denotes acceptance that the related allegations are correct, when you conspicuously take up the challenge to provide an answer in relation to the issues of contamination and the alleged buried bunker, but provide no response to other matters. For example the declassified documents relating to the Al Yamamah corruption scandal, the MoD, and the UK Atomic Energy Authority. The same applies to the Hakluyt spy firm and to the subject of the rigged Shell tender.

Allegations about a buried nuclear reactor at the site came from independent sources including Dr Busby and were published on TV programmes and by a number of national newspapers years before we raised the matter with Shell. I note your clear denial but if national security issues are involved, perhaps the information was kept from you. Evidence of a secret nuclear bunker may be contained in documents still deemed much too sensitive to declassify.

We also have the possibility that the radioactive contamination resulted from the arms which according to a very reliable knowledgeable source, Mr Gerald James, passed through the Earley terminal persuadably as part of Shell’s involvement in the “oil-for-arms trade. In regards to his reliability, the following are extracts from an article published by The Independent in April 1995:

Mr James has also alleged that ministers knew much more about the trade to Iran and Iraq during the 1980s than they have ever told Parliament.

Mr Aitken's attack on him last week was not the first time that the Government or its allies have hit back. During the Commons select committee inquiry into the Supergun affair, a number of Conservative members gave Mr James a difficult ride, accusing him among other things of being a "fantasist".

At the end of the inquiry, however, the committee accepted that in all matters about which he had direct knowledge, Mr James's testimony had been proven absolutely correct.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who came so late to cabinet office, has had a turbulent time of it. He may ride out this storm, but Gerald James is unlikely to leave him in peace.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950402/ai_n13974985?tag=content;col1

The last quoted remark was prophetic. Jonathan Aitken subsequently resigned as a Minister and ended up in jail after being caught committing perjury.  More evidence of the reliability of Mr James as a witness and his immense knowledge of UK Involvement in oil-for-arms deals can be found in Hansard. There are as we pointed out in the article, many references by Mr James in his book “IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST”, to Shell’s involvement in the Al Yamamah scandal and its connection with the Intelligence Services.

The reference to the “Chambers” website and the endorsement from a Shell lawyer was a mistake. I should have referred to the website operated by Rouse International on which Shell is still currently listed as a client, with Laddie and Willoughby still listed as consultants, as per the links checked today...

http://www.iprights.com/content.output/344/344/Clients/Clients/Client%20List.mspx (Shell still listed as a client as it has been for many years)

http://www.iprights.com/content.people/5/5/People/People/People.mspx?fn=search (Sir Hugh Laddie still a consultant)

http://www.iprights.com/content.people/5/5/People/People/People.mspx?fn=search (Tony Willoughby still a consultant)

I note the confirmation that we are not immune to a defamation action from Shell. It follows that if Shell fails to issue an injunction to prevent publication of any allegations made in the current correspondence that you consider untrue, then observers are entitled to conclude that the allegations/statements are accurate and associated documents authentic.

You have 48 hours to issue proceedings. If Shell fails to take action by close of business on Wednesday we will publish the article, the documents and the entire correspondence. We will also commence circulation of the revised email to MP’s.

Regards
John Donovan
RoyalDutchShellPlc.com

EMAIL FROM RICHARD WISEMAN TO JOHN DONOVAN: 25 November 2008 07.14

On 25/11/2008 07:14, "richard.wiseman@shell.com" <richard.wiseman@shell.com> wrote:

Dear Mr Donovan,

Since even using the language you prescribe does not satisfy you, you can hardly blame us for remaining silent and reminding you, as ever, that our silence must never be used to infer admission of any of your allegations, which, as ever, is the case here.
Regards

Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
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

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 25 November 2008 10.21

From: John Donovan
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-LMAPF
Cc: Frearson, Jeremy RA SI-CA-CX; Hess, Beat W RDS-ECBH; Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC; Raymond Fox
Sent: Tue Nov 25 11:21:58 2008
Subject: Re: MR RAY FOX

Dear Mr Wiseman

Readers of this correspondence will be able to see your clear denial in relation to the issues of radioactive contamination and an alleged buried bunker. The plain fact is that we are dealing with matters of national security, as is plain from the agreements involving Shell, the MoD and the UK Atomic Energy Authority deemed so secret that those relating to nuclear matters remained classified documents for many decades. As I have pointed out, there may well be other top secret documents which remain classified. This would almost certainly apply if a nuclear bunker was buried in a populated area.

I have been supplied with a copy of the email you sent at 9.09 am yesterday morning to Shell colleagues, including Jeremy Frearson, relating to these matters. You supplied him, Beat Hess and Michiel Brandjes with a draft of your intended response to me.

It is interesting to note the differences between that draft and the actual response subsequently sent.

You decided to remove the claim that you had dealt with “All points” raised, as clearly you have failed to do so, deliberately and consistently choosing to duck the points you cannot deny because of the existence of direct proof in all of those matters.

We have no direct proof of a buried bunker. We do have definite evidence of radioactive contamination. These two words appearing in your draft response in the context of an acceptance of a “small degree of radioactive contamination”, possibly resulting from the disposal of “a smoke detector”, were removed from the version actually sent.  In other words you admitted the possible existence of radioactive contamination at the Shell terminal and then decided to delete that admission.

In connection with the admittance of the possibility of “a small degree of radioactive contamination”, you stated in the draft that it “would never have represented a risk to health or the environment”. This denial of risk was consciously dropped from the version sent.

We have never made any claim ourselves over levels of radioactive contamination at the Shell Earley terminal. We will be  republishing the findings of independent experts such as Dr Chris Busby. Those findings should be taken seriously by Shell and investigated accordingly instead of putting the radioactive contamination – *“some of the highest levels of plutonium and uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain” - all down to the disposal of a  hypothetical smoke detector. I am sure the firms which manufacture smoke detectors saving countless lives will be horrified at your comments.

I also note that you dropped the word “happy” which appeared in your draft. I suspect you are even less happy now.

Regards
John Donovan
RoyalDutchShellPlc.com

*Extract from the BBC Radio programme: “The Bunker”.

EMAIL FROM RICHARD WISEMAN TO JOHN DONOVAN: 25 November 2008 11.21

On 25/11/2008 11:21, "richard.wiseman@shell.com" <richard.wiseman@shell.com> wrote:

Mr Donovan,

The inference you draw between the difference between an early draft of my email and the final, clearer, version, is up to you.  I will not make a line by line response and you should not draw any inference from my not doing so.  


Regards

Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
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

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 25 November 2008 11.36

Dear Mr Wiseman

Thank you for the confirmation of the authenticity of your internal email containing the earlier draft.

Basically the best excuse Shell can offer for “some of the highest levels of plutonium and uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain” is the hypothetical disposal of a smoke detector.

This seems to be an appropriate moment to draw the correspondence to a close.

Regards
John Donovan
RoyalDutchShellPlc.com

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO JEROEN VAN DER VEER, CEO, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: 4 December 2008

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:33:46 +0000
To: <jeroen.vanderveer@shell.com>
Cc: <peter.voser@shell.com>, <rob.routs@shell.com>, <linda.cook@shell.com>, <malcolm.brinded@shell.com>, "jorma.ollila@shell.com" <jorma.ollila@shell.com>
Conversation: Radioactive Contamination from the Shell Terminal at Earley
Subject: Radioactive Contamination from the Shell Terminal at Earley

Dear Mr Van der Veer

I am writing just in case you and your executive colleagues (and the non executive Chairman) are unaware of my recent email correspondence with the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Mr Richard Wiseman.

If you are not, I am placing it on record that the correspondence has been brought to your attention as very serious matters are involved.

I believe it is appropriate to characterise the correspondence as being extraordinary as it contained an unusual statement of a personal nature by Mr Wiseman.  I was also astonished to receive a copy of a draft response Mr Wiseman circulated to senior colleagues before he sent me his official response. I did not receive the internal draft from Mr Wiseman. I pointed out to him the significance of the different content in the two versions. He confirmed the email containing his draft response was authentic.

Under the circumstances, I strongly suggest that you all ask Mr Wiseman to supply you with the entire correspondence which included a draft email to over 600 UK MP’s. It all related to radioactive contamination originating from the Shell terminal at Earley which Shell sold for a housing estate development by Persimmon Homes. Mr Ray Fox and his family have allegedly suffered serious health consequences from radioactive contamination which illegally flowed directly on to their neighbouring property via a defective drain.  

Although the initial response from Mr Wiseman was in line with the standing order at Shell not to supply me with ammunition, he later lived up to his reputation of “straight-talking”, at least in relation to the issue of an alleged buried secret nuclear bunker. He was less candid about Shell’s secret agreements with the UK Atomic Energy Authority and the UK Ministry of Defence. Indeed, he said not a single word on either subject.

Mr Wiseman did not challenge the authenticity of declassified documents including those relating to the Al-Yamamah BAe  scandal in which Shell played what had been described as a “money-laundering” role. The same applied to documents confirming Shell’s close association with Hakluyt & Company Limited, the spy firm which carried out undercover operations for Shell on an international basis and had common directors and major shareholders.     

Mr Wiseman eventually advanced the theory that the radioactive contamination may have resulted not from an alleged buried secret nuclear reactor, but from the hypothetical disposal of a smoke detector. His comment was in relation to what has been described as “some of the highest levels of plutonium and uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain” - allegedly found in the grounds of the Fox residence famed for its dying trees and white worms.  Similar dramatic comments have been published in a number of newspaper articles and broadcast on TV and Radio programmes.  

I regret to say that under the circumstances the theory put forward by Mr Wiseman is not just preposterous, it is insulting to Mr Fox who has suffered physically, mentally and financially from the contamination and the tactics used by Shell to allegedly avoid its responsibility. Basically he is ill, stressed and destitute.

Please ask yourselves why Mr Wiseman tried to lure Mr Fox into an “all claims” settlement for the cost of Shell funding repair of a defective drain, if Shell has no legal liability. This happened. It is a recorded unchallenged fact.

The problem with Mr Wiseman’s conjecture over the disposal of a smoke detector is that it is directly at variance with the written considered conclusions of someone actually qualified to pass expert comment on such matters. I refer to the findings of the leading UK independent expert on radioactive contamination, Dr Chris Busby PhD.

The following comment arising from the findings of Dr Busby was published by Radioactive Times:  

What clinches the argument that there has been contamination from a reactor or fissionable nuclear bomb material is the ratio of Uranium-238 to Uranium-235. Although the absolute levels are not high, this ratio is an unmistakable fingerprint for material from a reactor or a bomb core. It is enriched Uranium that is in Ray Fox’s house.

http://www.llrc.org/rat/subrat/rat519.htm

In an effort to be constructive, I would draw your attention to the findings and recommendations of Dr Busby following tests carried out in 2008 in the vicinity of Mr Fox’s former residence and on urine samples taken from Mr Fox, over a decade after his exposure.

Conclusions and recommendations

The measurements of uranium in a urine sample from Mr Ray Fox carried out by Harwell Scientifics for Green Audit in February 2008 show the presence of slightly enriched uranium. Since this is still there and being excreted some 12 years after his exposure suggests that that was significant. It is not possible to calculate the original exposure without knowing the proportion of the material that is due to normal everyday ingestion.

However, its clear existence supports the belief that Mr Fox was exposed to radioactive waste material from the nuclear reactor or some nuclear research facility upstream of the drain being cleared by Mr Fox in 1996. The evidence is that there may have been, and therefore may still remain, an underground nuclear facility or reactor at the former Shell site at Earley.

I recommend that funding is made available tor further independent examination of urine samples from Mr Fox, and that the area of the former Shell depot, now a housing estate' Amber Close', be subjected to magnetometer or other appropriate investigation to locate the reactor, and that the reactor and associated radioactivity be removed as a matter of public health safety.

Chris Busby
Feb 20 2008

Dr Caroline Lucas MEP and The Green Party, which she now leads, have given strong support to Mr Fox as is plain from the letter to UK government minister, Nick Raynsford, dated 9 July 2004. The letter confirms that Dr Busby and Dr Lucas had a meeting in Brussels with Stephen Kaiser of the ED Radiation Protection unit to demand an investigation.  The letter also requested:

“Full and transparent investigation of the contaminated site using underground building location equipment, full disclosure of the findings and an open assessment of the scale and consequences of the contamination.”

Dr Lucas, who to her great credit, was voted the most ethical UK politician in the 2007 Observer Ethical Awards, has continued to provide support to Mr Fox in his fight for justice.
 
http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/LetterGreenPartytoDepPM9Jul04.pdf

http://www.shellnews.net/rayfoxwebsite/LucasLetters.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/10/ethicalliving.lifeandhealth3

I understand Dr Busby is now in the possession of technology to carry out research at the former terminal which could potentially confirm or debunk the buried nuclear bunker allegation. If Shell wishes to find out more, please contact Mr Victor Tassell who for some considerable time been kindly providing his unpaid advice to Mr Fox. It was Mr Tassell who on behalf of Mr Fox, successfully made the legal case to the relevant EU Authorities arguing that the UK government had failed to implement Euratom health and safety provisions against ionising radiation. His impressive submissions on behalf of Mr Fox resulted in a related judgment against the UK government by The Court of Justice of the European Communities, as  announced in July 2007.

http://www.shellnews.net/rayfoxwebsite/EU%20NUCLEAR%20RADIATION%20JUDGMENT.html

Email Address for Mr Victor Tassell: thamsall@yahoo.co.uk

Mr Tassell also represented Ray Fox in the High Court action brought against Shell. Mr Fox alleges that the prosecution of the case was frustrated by the tactics of Shell and its solicitors, Weightmans, in obstructing the discovery process.

The article which started this correspondence will be published tomorrow with a brief introduction/update. The email to MP’s will be updated and if circulation cannot be completed before the Christmas/New Year recess, the emails, which have to be sent individually, will not be sent until early in 2009.

I will also be sending a letter to the residents of Amber Close and Lambourne Gardens in Earley informing them about these matters. A self-explanatory draft is printed below.

No doubt someone will let me know if Shell decides to commission Dr Busby to investigate and resolve the bunker issue, in which case we would hold off the MP emails and the letter to local residences until the results are known. If Mr Wiseman is correct in saying there is no nuclear bunker (I have no doubt he is entirely sincere in making that denial) then the minds of interested parties, such as the people living on the housing estate, could be put at rest on that score. If on the other hand, the allegations are shown to be well founded, then appropriate action could be taken.

At least we would move closer to establishing the source of the contamination which has allegedly ruined the lives of Mr Fox and his family.

I am 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.

I will shortly be moving on to another highly sensitive subject backed up by a substantial volume of documentary evidence.  

Regards
John Donovan
RoyalDutchShellPlc.com
 
LETTER TO RESIDENTS OF AMBER CLOSE & LAMBOURNE GARDENS

SUBJECT: Alleged radioactive contamination from the former Shell Terminal at Earley

I am writing to you in my capacity as the editor of a non-commercial website focused on the activities of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. The One World Trust, an independent organisation linked to the Houses of Parliament and the United Nations, has publicly applauded our role in holding Royal Dutch Shell to account for its actions.

As you may be aware, a number of TV and Radio programmes and newspaper articles have raised the issue of a possible radioactive contamination problem arising from an alleged buried nuclear bunker at the former Shell Petrochemical Terminal at Early. The BBC commissioned independent research carried out by a leading radiation scientist, Dr Chris Busby. The results were alarming.
 
It appears from our inquiries that basically there are two sides to the debate. All parties potentially liable if it turns out that radioactive contamination from the Shell Terminal has created grounds for legal action, say there is no radioactivity above normal background level. Independent experts take a different view, with tests by Dr Busby revealing “some of the highest levels of plutonium and uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain”.

I sent a draft article on this matter to Shell on 11 November 2008. I also supplied links to many documents, reports, video and other relevant information. This resulted in extensive email correspondence with Mr Richard Wiseman, a barrister and former Legal Director of Shell UK, who is now a General Counsel and Chief Ethical and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.  Mr Wiseman eventually advanced the theory that the radioactive contamination could have resulted from the hypothetical disposal of a smoke detector. I pointed out that Dr Busby had indicated that the radioactive contamination had a unique fingerprint which could only have come from a nuclear source such as a nuclear reactor or nuclear bomb.
 
Mr Wiseman did give me a categorical written assurance that no nuclear bunker is buried under the former Shell terminal on which the homes in Amber Close were built. I am sure he is absolutely sincere in his denial. Normally such a categorical statement from such a high level source could be accepted and put an end to the matter.
 
The problem here is that Shell executives sometimes deliberately keep in-house lawyers in the dark about highly sensitive matters (in this case involving classified information). It was clear from an article published by The Independent on 10 May 2004 that Shell’s in-house army of over 600 lawyers, including Mr Wiseman, were kept in the dark about a multibillion dollar securities fraud perpetrated by senior Shell executives. The fraud cost Shell shareholders a combined total of about $850 MILLION USD in fines from the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission and the UK Financial Services Authority, class action settlements and associated legal costs. A number of Shell executives, including the Shell Group Chairman, Sir Phillip Watts, were forced to resign, but still received fat cat payoffs to keep them sweet, reportedly $18.5 million in the case of Sir Phillip.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/let-me-in-im-a-lawyer-562836.html

In regard to ethical considerations, you need to be aware that there is a significant dark side to Shell stretching back even further than support for Hitler and the Nazi party. Shell’s more recent track record includes a leadership role in an illegal cartel for which the company received another huge fine. Only a few years ago it admitted using undercover activity in sinister missions directed at Greenpeace and other organisations. Mr Wiseman has himself admitted in writing Shell’s use of another agent who was caught red-handed using fake documents and a fake company on behalf of Shell.

The glossy advertising campaigns can also be deceptive. Shell was recently fined by the UK and Dutch Advertising Authorities for “greenwashing” which involved an advert showing flowers rising from its refinery chimneys, when it fact, the company has attracted multimillion fines for deadly release of toxic substances into the air and into groundwater.

A racketeering case is commencing against Shell in February in the USA. The case relates to alleged serious crimes against the Ogoni people in Nigeria where Shell has an atrocious human rights record after plundering natural resources and polluting the environment. The Nigeria hero and peace campaigner, Ken Saro-Wiwa, was murdered by a corrupt military regime which was supported by Shell.
 
What it boils down to is that contrary to the nostalgic message in a Bing Crosby jingle performed in a classic TV commercial, you cannot be sure of Shell.

Inquiries have revealed two possible sources of radioactive contamination at Earley. We have already mentioned the alleged buried nuclear bunker. In this connection, declassified correspondence and agreements between Shell and the UK Atomic Energy Authority confirm that contrary to information given by Mr Wiseman in 2004, Shell’s involvement in nuclear matters is far greater than he indicated.
 
Declassified UK Ministry of Defence documents and other evidence indicate an entirely different source for the radioactive contamination. They confirm that Shell was involved in what has been described as a money laundering role in the BAE Al Yamamah “oil-for-arms” scandal involving the sale of fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. There is also credible evidence that more arms, including nuclear weapons, were shipped from the Earley Terminal to Iran and Iraq.

There may of course be top secret documents which have not been declassified because of long term sensitivity. This would likely apply in the case of any secret project involving long term radiation emissions.
 
Since Shell is not short of funds given its windfall multibillion dollar profits in the last 18 months or so from high oil prices, I have suggested to Shell that it should fund research to establish once and for all if there is a buried nuclear bunker.
 
This is important because there is a vast difference between a buried nuclear bunker from which radioactive contamination could potentially cause a problem for many decades, in comparison with radioactive contamination stemming from a transient source which may have emitted radiation for a short time at the terminal many years ago.
 
Obviously while this uncertainly remains, the local population is likely to be justifiably worried about health implications and the possible impact on house prices.
 
If you want to read more including the article, the declassified documents, various medical and scientific reports, plus my recent extensive correspondence with Shell, visit www.rayfox.info
 
Shell has had advance sight of this letter and therefore the opportunity to obtain an injunction if anything stated as fact is untrue. The fact that you are reading it now is proof that Shell has not legally challenged the veracity of the content. It also means that Shell refused to fund the independent research needed to eliminate the buried nuclear bunker allegation.

I want to make it plain that I have no personal opinion about the alleged radioactive contamination because I have no expertise whatsoever in such matters. However, if I lived in your area and was aware of the allegations stemming from the findings of experts such as Dr Busby and Dr Karta Badsha, I would press Shell to fund an independent investigation so as to put my mind at rest.

If you would like to ask Shell to reconsider the matter, I suggest that you send a letter or email to Mr Wiseman.

Mr Richard Wiseman
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

Fax: +44 20 7021 3023
Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com

Finally, if you or any family member has suffered from any illness which may stem from radiation poisoning, please let me know. My email address is john@shellnews.net

Yours faithfully
John Donovan

MORE ABOUT OUR WEBSITE

International publications such as the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times turn to us for inside information about Shell. For example, we put the FT in contact with our network of Shell sources in relation to recent FT articles about Shell, including one about the high rate of Shell employee deaths compared with all of its peers.  Shell is known for its “Touch F*** All” culture giving a higher priority to North Sea Platform production and profits than the safety of Shell offshore workers.

We supplied to the World Wildlife Fund, whistleblower evidence about alleged corruption and environmental impact relating to the formally Shell led Sakhalin-2 project in Russia. Information naming us as the conduit for the whistleblower information can be found on the House of Commons website.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/semaphoreserver?DB=semukparl&FILE=search

Shell lost its majority share in the project at a cost of many billions of dollars as a result of our intervention.

More information about our website can be found on the Wikipedia article:

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

EMAIL ENDS

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENDS