ShellNews.net: SHELL: Two radical steps could further distance Royal Dutch Shell from the reserves scandal.: Monday 8 August 2005
By John Donovan
Although the media has welcomed the appointment of Jorma Ollila as the new Shell Chairman from June 2006, many of the news reports about his recruitment also include references to the Shell reserves debacle. This is despite the fact that over a year and a half has passed since news first broke about the scandal.
Commentary harking back to the scandal has been a regular feature of news reports about Shell. Although Shell has paid nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in regulatory fines and litigation settlements, other litigation is still proceeding, as well as on-going investigations, so there is no prospect of negative commentary abating any time soon. There is also the matter of the pending FSA tribunal ruling in respect of proceedings brought by disgraced former Shell Chairman Sir Phillip Watts.
Consequently the new company, Royal Dutch Shell plc has a major problem in shaking off association with what has been described on BBC TV as the biggest investor fraud in history.
The response to such outspoken criticism about management misdeeds has been far from consistent. Eight Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively obtained a High Court injunction against a former Shell geologist, Dr John Huong and brought defamation proceedings against him. This may have been done to silence him because Dr Huong is in possession of Shell internal documents proving that Shell ignored his internal whistleblower comments warning about deceiving shareholders in relation to hydrocarbon reserves. They also ignored his written warnings about health and safety issues relating to Shell's accident prone helicopter fleet in Malaysia. His warnings on that matter have also been vindicated after the crash in June of a Shell helicopter in the seas off Sarawak.
Dr Huong appears to a curious exception because a host of outspoken comments about Shell and its management have been ignored. For example, the blunt comments made by a Shell shareholder, Mr John Farmer, about Shell management at two successive AGM’s have not resulted in any legal response from Shell. This is despite the fact that Mr Farmer publicly branded Sir Philip Watts as a “crook” - a comment which caught the attention of the national press (check links below).
The Royal Dutch/Shell Group has also ignored countless newspaper headlines and news reports, a number of which are featured on the home page of ShellNews.net. Some examples: a headline in The Independent on 20 April 2004 stated: “Lies, cover-ups, fat cats and an oil giant in crisis”: On 6 June 2004, a Mail on Sunday headline stated: “Chairman Jeroen van der Veer in frame over Shell scandal – could lead to 20 years in jail.”: On 25 June 2004, a London Evening Standard headline stated: Shell 'has lied for 10 years' (articles accessible via links below).
It is very difficult for Shell to deal with negative comments because of the unfortunate factual background. Shell senior management including Jeroen van der Veer and Malcolm Brinded signed Form 20-F filings to the SEC containing materially false information about Shell’s hydrocarbon reserves. When Sir Philip Watts signed the Form 20-F filings he did so knowing the figures for the reserves had been grossly inflated.
The incriminating emails from Walter van de Vijver to Sir Philip Watts left little room for denial of wrongdoing – the infamous email from van der Vijver to Watts saying: 'I am becoming sick and tired about lying about the extent of our reserves issues..." will pass into corporate folklore.
Personally I have sympathy for Walter van de Vijver because it appears that the ambition and ruthlessness of his British colleagues was responsible for putting him into an intolerable position.
In summing up the situation, although Royal Dutch Shell has taken a step further away from the reserves scandal by hiring Jorma Ollila, the damaging repercussions and references to the scandal in the news media are likely to continue for a long time to come unless some radical further steps are undertaken.
I have two suggestions for further distancing Royal Dutch Shell from the reserves scandal. Firstly it should pension off all remaining directors tainted in any way by the scandal. This would have the double benefit of removing the people - Jeroen van der Veer and Malcolm Brinded, responsible for the $10 billion dollar Sakhalin-2 cost overrun debacle. Secondly, since the Shell brand name has been irreversibly damaged, it could be replaced by "DUTCH" or RD. This would take time and would obviously be a costly project but with the record high price price of oil, Shell has the cash flow to fund the makeover.
Only major action will change the mindset of the media. A genuine fresh start is needed.
Some related articles:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/mirrorinvestigates/tm_column_date=29062004-name_index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3846741.stm
http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com/week26/shellnewsironicshell.htm
http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com/2004%20Documents/nopodds/openlettertovanderveer18july04.htm
The Independent: Lies, cover-ups, fat cats and an oil giant in crisis
London Evening Standard: Shell 'has lied for 10 years'
LEGAL STATEMENT BY THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GROUP REGARDING THIS WEBSITE: I, Alfred Donovan, would like to remind Shell lawyers that the "group" has placed on record its acknowledgement of my freedom to air my opinions about Shell on ShellNews.net. I did of course already have rights under various freedom of expression conventions and declarations but its nice to know that Shell, one of the multinational rulers of our planet, recognises this fact. The Royal Dutch Shell Group made the following unusual statement in a legal document in regards to this website: - "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." This statement drafted by Shell lawyers and authorised by the "Group", amounts to tacit approval/acceptance/recognition of this website by Shell. It was submitted to The World Intellectual Property Organisation in May 2005 by Shell International Petroleum Company Limited on behalf of the Royal Dutch Shell Group in proceedings against me, Alfred Donovan, as the "Respondent" (owner) of three domain names, including www.royaldutchshellplc.com. It remains a mystery why Shell has taken an entirely different view regarding the fundamental human right to freedom of expression in respect of the former Shell geologist Dr John Huong, the well-known Shell whistle-blower, in relation to postings under his name elsewhere on this same website. Eight companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group collectively obtained a High Court Injunction to silence him. The Injunction remains in force.
Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Site Ownership: Shell 2004.com (also known as ShellNews.net) IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE SHELL SHAREHOLDERS ORGANISATION: CHAIRMAN ALFRED E DONOVAN, 847a Second Avenue, New York City, NY 10017, USA. The statements expressed here, and any opinions, are those of the writers alone, and neither are opinions of nor reflect the views of Shell2004.com. Content created by the writers is the sole responsibility of the writers and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed. This goes for all links, too: Shell2004.com has no control over the information you access via such links, does not endorse that information, cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon, and shall not be responsible for it or for the consequences of your use of that information.
© 2004/5 Shell2004.com All rights reserved.
Click here for ShellNews.net HOME PAGE