REFERENCES TO ROYAL DUTCH SHELL ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

REFERENCES TO SHELL AGM

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

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 March 2007 18.43 20 March 2007 8:10 Includes reference to "Centenary Book" in undated page from 2007

-----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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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.

22 March 2007 12:42 (WE BELIEVE THE AREA SHOWN WITH xxx CONTAINED TEXT WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BUT CANNOT BE CERTAIN

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

Hi - some input from us:

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 reSDonse 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 the AGM.

Thanks

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

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.

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

8 April 2009 Focal Point Mentions Ray Fox XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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.