Royal Dutch Shell Group .com Rotating Header Image

Posts under ‘Shell Greenwash’

Shell “knew of climate change danger” since 1991 – Greenpeace response

Published by Greenpeace Southeast Asia: Thursday 2 March 2017

A film in 1991, produced by Shell, shows that the oil giant has long known about the catastrophic risks of climate change.

The film, titled Climate of Concern, was obtained by the Correspondent, a Dutch online journalism platform, and published in The Guardian’s article ‘Shell knew’: oil giant’s 1991 film warned of climate change danger.

In response, Desiree Llanos Dee, Climate Justice Campaigner for Greenpeace Philippines, said:

“Exxon knew. Shell knew. Now we must get to the bottom of what other fossil majors know and what they plan to do to avert catastrophic climate change. Shell’s empty rhetoric on climate is wholly contradicted by the core assumption underlying its business plans – global temperature increases in excess of 3°C and its lobbying against measures to mitigate climate change. read more

Shell’s Soccer Field Greenwash

Screen Shot 2014-10-30 at 09.22.43From a Forbes article by Alex Epstein: Shell’s “Footstep-Powered” Soccer Field Will Never Work

Oil giant Shell claims in its #makethefuture campaign that it is promoting renewable energy and helping a poor community in Brazil by bringing it “the world’s first football pitch powered by footsteps.” It has told 1.6 million YouTube viewers and counting that this an idea “that could change the world.”

Don’t believe it.


BP and Shell urged to stop using shareholders’ money to fund libertarian lobby group

Screen Shot 2014-01-30 at 00.47.49Extract from a This is Money/Daily Mail article by Rob Davies published 2 June 2014

BP and Shell have been urged to stop using shareholders’ money to fund a US lobby group that promotes looser gun laws and the teaching of climate change denial in schools. The oil firms are members of the secretive American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which greases the wheels of communication between politicians and corporate interests. BP and Shell remain member-donors, prompting criticism from investment institutions who say use of shareholders’ money to fund ALEC is opaque and improper. read more

Shell environmental rhetoric, vs toxic reality

Introductory flowery rhetoric in a 1958 Shell advert: Shell Guide to LIFE IN THE CORN

“In the growing and ripening stages corn and hay are a sanctuary for wild life which man does not invade.”

The advert concludes with the slogan: “You can be sure of SHELL The Key to the countryside.”

Presumably this was meant as an assurance that it was safe to trust Shell with the environment.  Ironically the use of weedkillers was mentioned in the advert. read more

Shell the brand most targeted by activist

Shell Most Targeted By Activists Finds Global NGO Monitor

Arun Sudhaman 29 Jun 2012

LONDON–Shell has become the brand most targeted by activist groups, according to a digital service that tracks NGO campaigns worldwide.

Sigwatch, which monitors more than 4,000 activist groups globally, is expanding its service via a new website that provides a greater wealth of data regarding the threats posed to businesses by NGOs, and the issues that are sparking pressure.

The company has found that Shell is the company most criticised by activists in 2012. Shell has also seen the largest rise in activist criticism compared to 2011, along with Monsanto, Apple and Bank of America. Companies that have seen NGO attacks decline markedly over the same period include BP, Holcim and BHP Billiton. read more

Classic International concert REAPS what Shell sponsorship sows.


Hot on the heels of their appearance at the Shell vs. Bodo case at the High Court, activists from London Rising Tide, staged a protest in and outside the Royal Festival Hall on Saturday 23rd June, highlighting the greenwashing of shell’s tardy image through cultural sponsorship in their ‘shell classic international’ festival at the southbank centre.

At dusk prior to the Symphony Orchestra of Venezuela concert, activists gathered near their south bank target, and prepared their  ‘Shell Hell’ face masks and grim reaper costumes. Shortly before seven, they formed a procession and swiftly made their way to the entrance of the Royal Festival Hall. read more

Digital assault on Shell

By John Donovan

The Financial Times has published an article under the headline “How Shell was hijacked in ad hoax.


It is part of a web campaign jointly orchestrated by environmental group Greenpeace, activist organisation Yes Lab and members of the Occupy Wall Street movement to rally against Shell’s Arctic drilling programme.

The digital assault is a new type of internet campaigning. Rather than staging a protest, activist groups hijack brands and harness social media to derail a company’s image. “We’re only beginning to understand how much social media can change our society,” says James Turner of Greenpeace USA. read more

Evidence File


Litigation Against Shell

New York Times: “Shell Oil Shareholders Awarded $110 Million”13 December 1990New York Times: “Shell Settles Dumping Suit for $3 Million”: 9 February 1995

New York Times: “New Settlement In Plumbing Suit”: 9 November 1995

New York Times: “SHELL SETTLES ROYALTIES CASE FOR $33.5 MILLION”: 21 March 2002

Mail On Sunday: Shell Chief had private army: 4 April 2004

Dow Jones Article: US Court Ruling Paves For Shell Settlement To Proceed: 19 November 2007 (The ruling was first obtained by Shell critics’ Website, which has posted 2,000 pages of extracts from the case.)

National Paint & Coatings Association: NPCA Victorious in Shell Oil Litigation; Judge Upholds California’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act Fee Allocation: 21 March 2008

NPCA scored a victory for industry with a California Superior Court’s tentative decision which rules against Shell Oil in favor of the State of California and intervenor NPCA.

The court’s conclusion was fatal to Shell’s case because Shell failed to present any evidence under the relevant standard.

Plaintiff Shell Oil brought this action (Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US vs. California State Board of Equalization and California Department of Health Services) in 2005 seeking a refund of the $3,910,359.10 in Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Act fees assessed against Shell in 2002. NPCA successfully intervened in the suit in order to oppose Shell’s demand that the allocation be changed to place virtually the entire financial burden of the program on the coatings industry.

In particular, in weighing the credibility of the evidence, the Court specifically found that the correspondence and evidence established that the key Shell experts had a “predetermined mindset of the results of the study, prior to engaging in any research.” South Africa: Apartheid Victims to Sue Multinationals: 13 May 2008

Cape Town — Victims of apartheid who are suing 23 leading multinational corporations in American courts on the grounds that the companies collaborated with the policy have been given clearance to take their case forward.

The United States Supreme Court issued an order in Washington, DC, on Monday affirming a decision by a lower court, the effect of which is to allow the case to go ahead.

Khulumani said its case targetted the multinationals “for having aided and abetted the perpetration of gross human rights violations in South Africa under apartheid by equipping and financing the apartheid government’s military and security agencies.”

It said all the defendants had operations in apartheid South Africa, and it was seeking damages for “specific violations of internationally recognized human rights norms… by the apartheid government following the United Nations’ classification of apartheid as a crime against humanity.”

It named the defendants in the case as: Barclay National Bank Ltd., British Petroleum, PLC, Chevrontexaco Corporation, Chevrontexaco Global Energy, Inc., Citigroup, Inc., Commerzbank, Credit Suisse Group, Daimlerchrysler AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG, Exxonmobil Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Fujitsu, Ltd., General Motors Corporations, International Business Machines Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase, Shell Oil Company, UBS AG, AEG Daimler-Benz Industrie, Fluor Corporation, Rheinmetall Group AG, Rio Tinto Group and Total-Fina-Elf.

The Times of Zambia: US firms to pay for apartheid: 14 May 2008

Millions of South Africans are eligible to join a class-action lawsuit against US-based multinational corporations accused of aiding and abetting the apartheid government.

This follows a ruling by the US Supreme Court on Monday, which upheld a lower court’s decision to allow a civil case to proceed.

The civil case against major multinationals includes a damages claim and two class-action suits under the US Alien Tort Claims Act, an 18th century law that allows foreigners to sue in US courts.

“ The case has been hailed as a potential catalyst in advancing international human rights law.” Among the companies that face litigation are IBM, BP, Credit Suisse, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Exxonmobil , Ford Motor, General Motors and Shell.

A probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission is also under way, it said.

In its annual report with the SEC, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said it was contacted in July by the Department of Justice regarding its use of a unit of Panalpina World Transport Ltd., a Swiss-based shipping and logistics-management company.

Shell said in the filling the Justice Department was looking at potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as a result of such use. Shell declined to comment beyond the filings Wednesday.

Baltimore Sun: Class action settlements may aid in repairing leaky pipes: 5 September 2008

USAToday: NYC trial date for claims against Shell: 9 October 2008

Times Herald: Coweta files suit against Shell Oil Company: 23 October 2008 (Connected to New Settlement in Plumbing Suit?)

Reuters: Environmentalists, Nigerians plan to sue Shell: 5 November 2008

Wall Street Journal: Chevron Case Weighs Extent of Overseas Liability: 1 December 2008

Shell Oil Company Limestone Township $26 million settlement: December 2007

KANKAKEE CLASS ACTION: Limestone Class Action: December 2008


RPT-Shell agrees to settle TX refinery pollution suit: 23 April 2009

Houston Chronicle: Shell will pay millions to settle air pollution suit: 23 April 2009

New York Times: Shell Settles Air Pollution Suit: 23 April 2009

Bloomberg: Shell Must Defend Nigerian Rights Suit, Judge Says: 23 April 2009

Bloomberg: Companies Win at U.S. Supreme Court on Cleanup Costs: 4 May 2009

Reuters: Shell Oil, railroads win U.S. ruling on cleanup costs: 4 May 2009

BusinessWorld: Supreme Court tells Shell to pay P209M in duties: 26 June 2009

Ken Wiwa against Royal Dutch Petroleum Co (Shell): Case 1:96-cv-08386-KMW-HBP Wiwa, et al v. Royal Dutch, et al: KEN SARO-WIWA TRIAL AGAINST SHELL

Guardian: Shell agrees to pay compensation for execution of Saro-Wiwa and …
Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1993. Photograph: Greenpeace/AFP. The oil giant Shell has agreed to pay $15.5m (£9.6m) in settlement of a legal action in which it was … June 2009

The Times: Shell agrees $15.5m settlement over death of Saro-Wiwa and eight others: 9 June 2009


Jury Awards $50 Million in Punitive Damages Against Shell Oil Subsidiary: 12 March 2010

CPS Daily News: Shell to Pay Punitive Damages: 15 March 2010


Oklahoma jury rules in favor of royalty owners, Shell ordered to pay: 16 May 2008

A jury in Stephens County District Court in Duncan last Friday ordered Shell Western E & P Inc. and Shell Oil Co. to pay $66.8 million to trustees of royalty owners in a lawsuit stemming from royalties not paid since the early 1970s.

The order includes $13.2 million in actual damages and interest and $53.6 million in punitive damages.

Plaintiffs win $66 million from Shell Oil after making the mistake of relying on Shell’s “honesty and integrity”: 17 May 2008

Shell Oil weighs appeal of $66M verdict: 17 May 2008

Duncan Banner Daily Newspaper: Foreman explains $66 million verdict: 30 May 2008

Verdicts & Settlements January 13, 2009: Shell Oil to pay $66M to royalty owners: 13 January 2009

It took nearly four decades, but an Oklahoma jury ordered Shell Oil Co. to pay $66 million to five royalty owners (several of them deceased) for their share of a lucrative oil well dug in the early-1970s. The payments will go to two families who owned the land where Shell drilled for oil but were never informed when the company struck a huge reserve and built a well on the land in 1973.

Time was not an ally for plaintiffs’ attorney Randy Calvert, given that it took 20 years for his clients to even realize there was a well. Once they finally filed a complaint in 1995, Shell and then-lease owner Maynard Oil Co. switched counsel and dragged their feet on the case.

“Shell told us [in 1995] that if we didn’t want to accept a nuisance value settlement, they would drag the case out and my clients would be dead before they ever got the money,” said Calvert. “They ended up being partly right.”

Maynard Oil Co. settled prior to trial for a confidential amount, leaving Shell Oil as the sole defendant at trial.




Shell Oil Company to Pay $2.2 Million Settlement to Resolve Federal False Claims Case: Source: U.S. Department of the Interior: 10 May 2011


WASHINGTON — Shell Oil Company, Shell Offshore Inc., Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc., and Shell Western Exploration and Production (Shell Defendants) have agreed to pay the United States $2.2 million plus interest to resolve claims that the companies violated the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying royalties owed on natural gas produced from Federal leases, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Department of Justice announced today. 

The agreement was reached among the Shell Defendants, the Department of the Interior through its Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), and the Department of Justice. The total payment, including interest, is $2,287,145.74.

Shell Oil Companies to Pay $2.2 Million to Resolve Allegations of Royalty Underpayments from Federal Lands: 11 May 2011: Source: The United States Department of Justice


WASHINGTON – Shell Oil Company and other Shell affiliates have agreed to pay the United States $2.2 million to resolve claims that the companies violated the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying royalties owed on natural gas produced from federal leases, the Justice Department announced today. Shell Oil Company is the U.S.-based subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, a multinational oil company, and is a leading producer of oil and natural gas.

Shell tentative settlement of workers lawsuit alleging benzene exposure: WEAU News: 13 May 2011


Attorney Mike Brose, who is among the lawyers representing the former workers, says Shell reached the tentative agreement. He says the workers claim that they ended up with cancers like leukemia from exposure to benzene at the Uniroyal plant. It was used as a solvent in the rubber-making process.

Banana labourers sue Shell over pesticide harm: 20 June 2011: The I newspaper


Banana labourers in Latin America who claim they were left infertile and crippled by exposure to a dangerous pesticide have filed lawsuits against their former employers and chemical manufacturers, including the British-Dutch oil giant Shell.

Benzene Contamination Fears in Roxana Illinois: 22 June 2011: CBS St Louis


ROXANA, IL (KMOX) – Twenty-five years later, the Village of Roxana Illinois is being tested for known Benzene contamination. In 19-86 nearly nine-thousand gallons of Benzene leaked into the ground from a Shell Refinery pipeline. Connoco Phillips now runs the refinery, but Shell is still assuming the responsibility.

They say some Roxana residents have developed different types of Cancer, including Acute Myelogenous (AML) Leukemia,  associated with Benzene exposure. Some of the town’s people have already filed suit.

Another leukemia patient sues Shell, BP: 24 July 2011

The complaint alleges that Shell has known about the dangers of benzene causing cancer for decades, but publicly minimized and hid those dangers.

Shell accepts liability for two oil spills in Nigeria: 3 August 2011: The Guardian

Shell faces a bill of hundreds of millions of dollars after accepting full liability for two massive oil spills that devastated a Nigerian community of 69,000 people and may take at least 20 years to clean up.

Shell admits liability for huge oil spills in Niger delta: 4 August 2011: The Independent

Oil company Shell could be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars after accepting responsibility for two devastating oil spills in Nigeria’s Ogoniland region.

Oil in Nigeria: a history of spills, fines and fights for rights: 3 August 2011: The Guardian

On Wednesday Shell admitted liability for two massive oil spills in Nigeria. Ever since oil was discovered in the country in 1956, it has been a source of strife

MOSOP Feels Vindicated by Shell Company’s Spill Admission: 5 August 2011:Voice of America

“We feel completely vindicated, and the only regret is that it took a court in the United Kingdom to get Shell to admit its culpability in oil spills that we already knew that they were culpable for,” Mitee said.

Lawyers representing the Bodo community of Nigeria’s Ogoniland region sued Shell in a British court. They said the oil company could pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Lawsuit Challenges Arctic Drilling Permit as Shameful: Sustainable” 1 October 2011

New research reveals Shell paid militants who destroyed Nigerian towns: Platform London: 3 October 2011

SCOTUS to decide if corps. liable for torturing aliens, citizens: THOMSON REUTERS 17 October 2011

US Supreme Court to hear Nigeria-Shell rights case: AFP 17 October 2011

U.S. Supreme Court to hear bid to sue Shell for Nigerian abuses: The Wall Street Journal/ Associated Press: 17 October 2011

U.S. Supreme Court to hear bid to sue Shell for Nigerian abuses: Associated Press 17 October 2011

Ogoni Leader Welcomes U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Shell Case: Voice of America 18 October 2011

Lawsuit against Shell should be a no-brainer to decide: Washington Post 20 October 2011

Nigeria Village Files $1B Suit Against Shell in U.S.: Fox News 21 October 2011

Nigerians seek $1 billion from Shell for oil spills: AFP 21 October 2011

Free access to US court documents filed against Royal Dutch Shell claiming $1B in damages: 24 October 2011

Nigerians seek $1 bln from Shell over oil spills: Reuters: Tuesday 25 October 2011


Royal Dutch Shell Safety RecordHouston firms facing pipeline fines, penalties: Friday 29 June 2001EXTRACTSAnd Houston-based Equilon Pipeline Co. was slapped last week with $10 million in state and federal environmental fines for the 1999 rupture of a gasoline pipeline in Bellingham, Wash., resulting in three fatalities.

Equilon also faces a $3 million fine issued last year by the DOT — the largest penalty ever proposed against a pipeline operator in the history of the federal pipeline safety program. The El Paso penalty is the largest ever proposed against a natural gas pipeline operator.

Equilon, a joint venture of Texaco and Royal Dutch/Shell, was majority owner of Olympic Pipeline Co, operator of the Bellingham pipeline at the time of the accident. Since then, BP has taken control of Olympic Pipeline.

Both El Paso and Equilon were charged with violating numerous safety requirements in the operation of their respective pipelines.

Equilon told the state it was not operating the pipeline at the time of the rupture but had simply loaned Olympic several employees, including Equilon’s president, three vice presidents and the head of environmental compliance.

Reuters: Shell Washington refinery cited for safety violations: 25 June 2008

HOUSTON, June 25 (Reuters) – Washington state’s Department of Labor & Industries said on Wednesday it found 23 serious safety and health violations at Shell Oil Co’s 145,000 barrel per day (bpd) refinery in Anacortes, Washington.

Shell said it was weighing a possible appeal of the agency’s citation, which could lead to fines totaling $109,600.

Among the serious violations found at the Shell Anacortes refinery were failures to identify and control hazards that could lead to releases of highly hazardous chemicals and deficiencies in the development of mechanical integrity programs, the Labor & Industries Department said.

Seattle Times: Safety violations to cost Shell: 26 June 2008

Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries on Wednesday fined Shell Oil $109,600 for multiple safety violations in its Anacortes refinery.

The refinery, the second largest of the four major facilities that supply the Puget Sound region with gasoline and other petroleum products, was cited for 23 violations ranging from inadequately instructing operators on how to deal with emergencies to faulty inspections.

Shell, a unit of Anglo-Dutch oil conglomerate Royal Dutch Shell, is reviewing the citation, said Shell spokesman Brian Sibley. Shutting down the operation is “highly unlikely,” he said.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC is heading up a test venture in Hawaii to turn oil-rich algae into fuel. If the process is found commercially viable, the Anglo-Dutch conglomerate could build algae-processing plants elsewhere.

Bloomberg: Nigerian Oil Pipe Fire Extinguished, 6 Workers Died, Shell Says: 17 November 2008

BBC News: Gas firms fined over worker death: 26 November 2008 (Both Shell and AMEC admitted breaching health and safety rules and were each fined £150,000 plus £41,500 in costs at Norwich Crown Court.)

FT article: Shell deaths higher than other western groups: 30 November 2008 (Royal Dutch Shell last year suffered more workforce deaths than any other large western oil company, with a rate of fatalities twice as high as BP’s.)

upstreamonline: Shell death toll ‘higher than peers’ : 01 December 2008 (Last week Shell and service player Amec were each fined £150,000 ($230,000) after an Amec worker died during operations at Clipper.)

The Times-Picayune: Last weekend’s helicopter crash shakes up offshore workers: 10 January 2009

Reuters: Shell gets tough on costs as oil prices bite: 30 January 2009

(Royal Dutch Shell has intensified its cost-cutting efforts in response to the collapse in oil prices and also plans to step up efforts to improve what it said was a “mixed” safety record. Brinded said Shell had a “dreadful start” to this year after 10 contractors and one third party were killed in three incidents. )

International Herald Tribune: Shell gets tough on costs as oil prices bite: 30 January 2009

Reuters: Oil industry cost, job cuts may hit safety, skills: 3 February 2009

The Herald: ‘They know what they have to do: launch the life rafts and get out‘: 19 February 2009

(In July 2002, a Sikorsky S76 helicopter was ferrying personnel between a platform and a drilling rig, both owned by Shell, when it ditched about 25 miles north-east of Great Yarmouth, killing all 11 on board. It is understood the aircraft remained afloat after ditching. In March 1991, six men were killed when a Sikorsky S61N struck a crane on a Shell oil platform and plunged into the sea 116 miles east of Lerwick in Shetland.)

The Press and Journal: Alarm over hundreds of offshore incidents: 4 March 2009

The Sunday Times: Oil rigs plagued by safety lapses: 12 April 2009

London Fire Brigade: Shell fined record sum for fire safety breaches: 2 June 2009

The Guardian: Shell fined £300,000 over fire safety breaches: 3 June 2009

Shell slammed on safety: 21 May 2011: upstreamonline


The HSE has told Shell to submit a revised safety case for the Brent Charlie platform after gas was detected on its topsides following leaks on 12 January this year and 27 September 2010, Upstream can reveal.

Norway Raps Shell for Risking Oil Leak: 23 May 2011: The Wall Street Journal


LONDON—Royal Dutch Shell PLC has been rapped by Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority for a maintenance error on an oil well that had “major accident potential” and risked an oil leak.

The failure of all barriers to hydrocarbon flow from a well is very serious. An out-of-control well caused the explosion that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig last year, resulting in a three-month oil spill from a BP PLC well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Shell slammed for ‘serious’ safety slips: 23 May 2011: upstreamonline


Anglo-Dutch supermajor Shell has been hit with a safety order from the Norwegian authorities following an investigation into a well incident on the Draugen platform in December last year. The incident occurred during a wireline operation to replace a gas lift valve in well 6407/9-A-01. The operation resulted in the subsurface safety valve becoming stuck in the Xmas tree, blocking the upper mast valve, and leaving only one barrier against a potential leak.

Shell ‘ignored safety warnings’ before Bacton explosion: 16 June 2011 BBC News


The company has admitted seven safety and pollution offences following the explosion and fire at the Bacton terminal in Norfolk.

Gas terminal blast: Shell fined £1m plus £240,000 costs: 20 June 2011


Shell UK has been fined £1m plus £240,000 costs after an explosion at a gas terminal in Norfolk in 2008.

The company admitted seven safety and pollution offences following the explosion and fire at the Bacton terminal.

Ipswich Crown Court heard the company ignored warnings from staff before the explosion.

Shell ordered to pay $2 million for UK gas fire: 20 June 2011 Reuters


(Reuters) – A British court ordered Royal Dutch Shell’s UK unit to pay 1.242 million pounds ($2 million) in fines and legal costs for a fire at its Bacton gas terminal in 2008 which cut more than a tenth of UK gas supply.

A leak of highly flammable hydrocarbon liquid caused the explosion and fire at a waste water plant in which nobody was killed or seriously injured only by “good fortune,” according to Britain’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

British court fines Shell UK 1.2 million pounds ($2M) over blast in 2008 at coastal terminal: 20 June 2011: The Washington Post


Judge Martin Binning said Monday that workers had warned Shell many times about dangerous conditions at the plant in Bacton, on the Norfolk coast 125 miles (200 km) northeast of London.

Shell UK sentenced over Norfolk gas blast: 20 June 2011: UK Health & Safety Executive


The explosion blew the concrete roof off a buffering tank within the plant, hurling concrete and metal debris over a large area and sucking a nearby drain out of the ground. After investigating the incident HSE and Environment Agency (EA) jointly prosecuted the firm over safety, environmental control and pollution-prevention failures at the plant leading to the explosion.

Oil and gas spills in North Sea every week, papers reveal: 5 July 2011: The Guardian


Shell has emerged as one of the top offenders despite promising to clean up its act five years ago after a large accident in which two oil workers died.

Shell platform to shut down amid continuing concerns about safety: 6 July 2011 The Shetland Times


The Shell-operated Brent Charlie platform 125 miles north-east of Lerwick is to shut down from next Friday on the orders of oil industry regulators amid continuing concerns about safety.

But now the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has served Shell with a legally-enforceable prohibition notice which means the operator will have to cease production entirely. An HSE spokesman declined to give details of the “safety issues” it was concerned about for legal reasons.

HSE feared a ‘catastrophe’ at Brent C platform: 9 August 2011: upsteamonline

The UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE) feared “catastrophic consequences” on Shell’s Brent Charlie platform because the scale of a long-running series of gas leaks meant ignition was “almost inevitable”, documents reveal.

Revealed: Shell’s poor safety record in the UK: 21 August 2011: Sunday Herald Scotland

Dixon called for Shell’s North Sea operations to be restricted until a full and independent audit of all its facilities had been carried out. “Shell’s poor regard for safety and their terrible communications over the last 10 days should be ringing major alarm bells…”

Shell had oil rig safety warning: The Sunday Times: Scotland. 21 August 2011

AN internal investigation by Shell eight years ago raised serious concerns about safety in the Gannet oilfield, where the company has been battling to contain the worst spill in British waters for a decade. Documents obtained by The Sunday Times reveal that dozens of unauthorised repairs were carried out on Shell’s Gannet Alpha platform.

HSE Letter to Shell 18 July 2011

Warning North Sea oil platforms could be near collapse: STV News 5 September 2011

Former Shell chairman James Smith to lead deregulation of UK oil and gas industry: Daily Telegraph 7 Sept 2011

The minister has written to “stakeholders” in the oil industry urging them to contribute their thoughts, while promising that current standards would not be lost. However, his comments may cause alarm among those who have pressed for tighter regulation in the wake of recent North Sea problems such as Shell’s pipeline leak and concerns from the Health and Safety Executive about platform corrosion.

SCOTTISH OIL RIGS IN DIRE STRAITS: Sunday Express article 11 Sept 2011

Mr Campbell insisted it is only a matter of time before there is another major tragedy in the North Sea. He said: “According to public domain data there were 85 gas releases and 443 dangerous occurrences last year. If you are getting 85 gas leaks that’s one and a half, or two, leaks a week. The probability of an undesirable event is very high.”PDF version of article

Explosion warning over Shell platform: The Press and Journal: Saturday 17 Sept 2011

The Health and Safety Executive is raising fears once again about the 35- year-old Brent Charlie platform, which has recorded 61 oil and gas leaks in a decade.

It emerged last night that the company has been served with an improvement notice over its failure to take action to identify “events” that could lead to a major accident, fire or explosion following a gas release.

Shell has been given until the end of the month to tackle the issues – which relate to one of the platform legs – or face further sanctions from the government body.

Inspection report on spill pipeline ‘overdue by three years’: Press & Journal: 20 February 2012

Shell’s Gannet Alpha leak pipeline audit three years overdue: BBC New: 20 February 2012


See also: Royal Dutch Shell Safety Concerns

Shell Price Fixing New York Times: “Shell to Pay $180 Million” (Price fixing case): 3 Jan 1987New York Times: “California Oil Price-Fixing Case Settled”: 17 August 1991New York Times: Settlement for Coral Power: 15 November 2003

Bloomberg: Shell, Unipetrol, Bayer Are Sued Over Rubber Cartel (Update2): 20 May 2008

May 20 (Bloomberg) — Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., the second- largest U.S. tiremaker, and 25 other companies sued Unipetrol AS, units of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Bayer AG, and as many as 20 others over an alleged rubber cartel in Europe.

Unipetrol and units of Shell, Dow Chemical Co., Eni SpA and Trade-Stomil Sp were fined a total of 519 million euros ($813 million) in a 2006 European Union antitrust case over material used to make tires and shoes. The companies are appealing.

The Times: Supermarkets and tobacco firm are fined £173m for price fixing: 12 July 2008

Asda and Somerfield have admitted fixing the price of cigarettes and overcharging customers under a secret deal with the manufacturer of brands including Benson & Hedges and Silk Cut. The Office of Fair Trading said that a total of £173.3 million in fines and costs had been agreed in one of the biggest settlements of its kind.

Other firms that admitted colluding in the pricing scam include the owner of Threshers, the off-licence chain, and One Stop convenience stores, which must contribute towards the settlement. But the lion’s share of the fine — £93 million — will be paid by Gallaher, owned by Japan Tobacco.

Other accused firms are fighting the allegations. These are Imperial Tobacco, which owns the Embassy, John Player and Golden Virginia brands, Tesco, Morrisons, Safeway (now taken over by Morrisons), the Co-op and Shell, for its petrol station stores. If they are found guilty of collusion they face serious penalties under the Competition Act.

Reuters: EU fines “paraffin mafia” wax makers’ cartel: 1 October 2008

The Times: ‘Paraffin mafia’ comes unstuck after €676m fines: 2 October 2008

Guardian: ‘Paraffin mafia’ firms given £500m fines for price-fixing: 2 October 2008

Financial Times: Brussels fines paraffin wax cartel: 2 October 2008

The Wall Street Journal: Wax Price-Fixing Is Alleged: 2 October 2008

Occupational Health & Safety: Merit Energy and Shell to lower emissions after clean air violations: 4 October 2008

Financial Post (Canada): GREECE FINES BP, SHELL $80M FOR PRICE-FIXING: 26 November 2008

ChannelNewsAsia: Greece fines BP, Shell for price-fixing: 26 November 2008

International Herald Tribune: Greece: BP, Shell fined for competition breaches: 25 November 2008

Bloomberg: Chevron, Total, Exxon, Shell Fined on Air France Fuel: price fixing cartel: 4 Dec 2008 (Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chevron fined 41.1 million euros ($52 million) by the French antitrust authority for fixing the price of fuel for certain Air France-KLM Group flights.)

Shell, Dow lose court challenge to EU antitrust fine: 13 July 2011: Reuters


(Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) and Dow Chemical (DOW.N) lost a court appeal on Wednesday against a fine levied by EU regulators five years ago for taking part in a cartel…

…the Court upheld the 160.88 million euro fine on the Royal Dutch Shell group.

Shell settles South Africa cartel case: 21 February 2012


AssortedMail On Sunday: Shell Chief had private army: 4 April 2004New York Times: Fining Shell, U.N. Concludes That Tanker Carried Iraq Oil: 26 April 2000 (IRAQ SANCTIONS BUSTING) EXTRACTS:

A Russian tanker chartered by one of the world’s largest oil companies, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, was carrying Iraqi oil on April 5 in violation of the international embargo against Iraq when it was stopped by American sailors, American and company officials said today.

The United Nations has fined the company $2 million, after determining that some of the 78,000 metric tons of oil aboard the tanker came from Iraq. The tanker, the Akademik Pustovoit, was boarded by American-led naval forces in the Persian Gulf three weeks ago.

Having traced the oil to Iraq, United Nations officials stopped short of seizing the cargo and will allow Royal Dutch/Shell to load the oil onto other ships.

Royal Dutch/Shell has maintained that the tanker carried only Iranian oil, loaded at the port in Bandar Mahshur. But the Pentagon’s spokesman, Kenneth H. Bacon, said today that tests on the cargo determined that 20 percent was from Iraq.

A spokeswoman for Royal Dutch/ Shell, Kate Hill, said the company agreed to pay the fine, even though its officials had not been shown evidence proving that the oil was Iraqi, because of the value of the entire shipment. ”It was a very valuable cargo,” Ms. Hill said in an interview from the company’s headquarters in London.

She did not specify the value of the entire cargo, but Pentagon officials said the $2 million fine was based on the market value of the percentage of the cargo that was Iraqi. Ms. Hill said the company did not knowingly violate the embargo when it bought the oil, which was bound for Singapore.

The Times: A word in your Shell-like – it’s all gibberish: 5 January 2008

Wall Street Journal: Shell will outsource jobs as part of cost shake-up: 12 January 2008

The Times: Demand for oil and gas will outstrip supply within 7 years, says Shell chief: 25 January 2008

Wall Street Journal: Shell Investigated for Corruption By Department of Justice, SEC: 26 March 2008


LONDON — The U.S. Department of Justice is examining corruption allegations in the use of a freight-forwarding firm by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the company said in regulatory filing published last week

Reuters: Shell, BP win big from volatile energy markets: 29 April 2008


While trading has boosted profit in the last few months, it has also brought BP and Shell under the scrutiny of regulators.

In 2004, Shell’s U.S. gas and power trading arm Coral Energy paid $30 million to settle charges it reported fake natural gas trades. Coral did not admit or deny wrongdoing.

The Times of Zambia: US firms to pay for apartheid: 14 May 2008

Millions of South Africans are eligible to join a class-action lawsuit against US-based multinational corporations accused of aiding and abetting the apartheid government.

This follows a ruling by the US Supreme Court on Monday, which upheld a lower court’s decision to allow a civil case to proceed.

The civil case against major multinationals includes a damages claim and two class-action suits under the US Alien Tort Claims Act, an 18th century law that allows foreigners to sue in US courts.

“ The case has been hailed as a potential catalyst in advancing international human rights law.” Among the companies that face litigation are IBM, BP, Credit Suisse, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Exxonmobil , Ford Motor, General Motors and Shell.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Bad gas causes local cars to stall: 26 May 2008

Two Safeway gas stations were shut down Sunday evening after contaminated gas filled at least nine vehicles, causing them to break down on a day of record gas prices statewide.

The Safeway gas station in Maple Valley had gas mixed with water, and company spokeswoman Cherie Myers said the contaminated fuel came about 5 p.m. from Shell.

“When they called the refinery, Shell said, ‘Yes, they have contaminated fuel,’ ” Myers said. “But we were able to get rentals for customers.”

Brian Sibley, a spokesman for Shell Puget Sound Refinery in Anacortes, said the refinery was not shut down and that he believed the contaminated fuel was delivered from Harbor Island.

Addis Fortune: Shell Ethiopia Employees Demonstrate: 28 July 2008

Employees of Shell Ethiopia demonstrated at the gate of their head office on July 23, 2008, expressing disappointment with the decision by Shell to sell its interests in Ethiopia to OilLibya. They have threatened to strike, demanding much better treatment from the oil franchise. Downer joins Eddington at ‘spy’ company: 14 October 2008 Eddington quits British intelligence firm over ‘conflict’: 15 October 2008

Guardian: The National Theatre should clean up its act and ditch Shell: 8 January 2009 PerFlorida’s troubled state pension fund dumped $1 billion “prohibited” stocks (Iran): 25 January 2009

The Bakersfield Californian: Californian exclusive: State investigating Shell over refinery trouble: 27 January 2009

SUNDAY MONITOR: Shell Uganda caught with ‘unmarked’ fuel: 8 February 2009 Shell owes P21B in taxes — BOC: 10 February 2009

Covalence Ethical Ranking 2008: Press Release: 20 January 2009 (Contains link to detailed results)

Shell Faces NGO Pressure To Withdraw From Syria: 27 May2011: The Wall Street Journal



LONDON (Dow Jones)–Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) is coming under pressure in the Netherlands to withdraw from Syria because of the Syrian government’s violent reprisals against pro-democracy demonstrators.

Shell accused over Syrian oil exports: 30 May


Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of working “hand in glove” with Syria’s regime after the energy company chartered a tanker to export almost 600,000 barrels of the country’s oil.

A spokesperson for Shell declined to confirm or deny the vessel’s arrival in Syria, saying only that the company does not comment on “commercial information”.

Hundreds of people have been killed since popular protests against the regime began in March. The army has responded to the unrest by opening fire on unarmed demonstrators in the country’s largest cities.

By continuing its commercial relationship with Syria despite the bloodshed, critics say that Shell is complicit in Mr Assad’s repression.

Shell accused of supporting Syrian regime: 31 May 2011 Daily Mail

Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of working ‘hand in glove’ with the government in Syria where hundreds of unarmed demonstrators have been killed during protests against the regime. The firm chartered a tanker to export almost 600,000 barrels of the country’s oil worth $55m, according to campaign group Platform. Shell declined to comment.

U.S. unions urge boycott of Shell to fight apartheid: Chicago Sun-Times: 19 January 1986 (page55)

A coalition of labor unions has called on Americans to boycott products sold by the Shell Oil Co., a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/ Shell Group, which has extensive oil, coal and chemical operations in South Africa.

The unions contend Royal Dutch/Shell, the world’s second largest multinational company in terms of sales, employs black slave labor in South Africa’s Rietspruit coal mine, of which it owns 50 percent with a South African firm.

“We hope this boycott will encourage Shell to disinvest in South Africa as part of the broad effort to pressure the South African regime to help bring about an end to the apartheid system,” said Owen Bieber, president of the United Auto Workers and chairman of the AFL-CIO’s Ad Hoc Committee on South Africa.

A spokesman for Shell Oil in Houston said the boycott is “unfortunate and misplaced” and that it will hurt American workers associated with Shell products.

The unions say their boycott is aimed not at individual merchants who happen to sell Shell products, but only Shell products themselves. Union leaders are asking the public to cut up their Shell credit cards and not buy Shell goods.

Copyright 1986, 1996 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.

Shell accused of fuelling violence in Nigeria by paying rival militant gangs: The Guardian 3 October 2011

Shell fuelled human rights abuses in Nigeria – NGO: Reuters 3 October 2011

Alleged funding of killings in Niger Delta: Shell faces probe: Nigerian Tribune 6 October 2011

SHELL UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR ALLEGED CORRUPTION IN NIGERIAThe Guardian: Shell shares hit by news of US inquiry: 17 March 2009Reuters: Shell says being investigated in US bribery probe: 17 March 2009The Wall Street Journal: UPDATE: Shell: Co Still Under Investigation By US DOJ, SEC: 17 March 2009

The Times: Shell investigated by SEC over bribery claims: 17 March 2009

Daily Telegraph: Shell offers reassurance on dividend policy: 17 March 2009

citywire: Shell bribery probe overshadows plans to lift divi: 17 March 2009

The Guardian: Shell wants to produce five times more oil from tar sands: 18 March 2009

Daily Mail: Nigerian oil probe traps Shell in net: 18 March 2009

The Independent: Shell warns of US probe into corruption claims: 18 March 2009

Shell to pay $48m Nigerian bribe fine: Daily Telegraph 4 November 2010


These companies, including Shell, admitted they “approved of or condoned the payment of bribes on their behalf in Nigeria and falsely recorded the bribe payments made on their behalf as legitimate business expenses in their corporate books, records and accounts”.

SHELL IN BRIBERY FINE: Daily Express 6 November 2010


Shell must pay a $30million “criminal penalty” over charges it paid $2million to a sub-contractor “with the knowledge that some or all of the money” would be used to bribe Nigerian officials to allow equipment into the country without paying duty. Shell, which has not admitted guilt, must pay a further $18million to repay profits and interests.


SHELL EXECUTIVE PAYFinancial Times: Shell pay packages defy poor stock performance: 18 March 2009Reuters: Shell faces revolt on executive pay: 5 May 2009The Wall Street Journal: Shell Investors Revolt Over Executive Pay Plan: 20 May 2009

The Guardian: Shell shareholders in executive pay revolt: 19 May 2009

The Telegraph: Shell remuneration committee under pressure to step down: 20 May 2009

Sir Peter Job and the remuneration committee at Royal Dutch Shell are facing calls to step down.

Reuters: Shell remuneration committee head Peter Job quits: 11 September 2009

The Telegraph: Shell overhauls executive pay in response to shareholder revolt: 16 February 2010

BBC New: Shell freezes pay for top managers after revolt: 16 February 2010

Hans Wijers’ letter to investors (with attachment). Hans Wijers is Chairman of the Royal Dutch Shell plc Remuneration Committee: 15 February 2010

Reuters syndicated articlesShell gets tough on costs as oil prices bite” published on 30 January 2009Shell eyes Mideast growth, to cut some jobs” published on 9 February 2009Shell to stall hires, and get “ruthless” on contractors published on 12 February 2009
WWF Evidence submitted in 2008 to House of Commons Select Committee quoting from a John Donovan Sakhalin II article published on The UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT Hansard Archives Research Uncorrected Evidence: 20 June 2008(2): Memorandum submitted by WWF to inquiry by House of Commons Select Committee: Quotes Sakhalin II corruption allegations from article: 20 June 2008(3): House of Commons Environmental Audit – Minutes of Evidence ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 October 2008 (RELATED LINK IS IMMEDIATELY BELOW)

(4) Evidence submitted by WWF to Select Committee on Environmental Audit: Evidence submitted 20 June 2008: (SAKHALIN II BACKGROUND INFORMATION: — Allegations have been made by a whistleblower of inappropriate relationships between SEIC management and its contractors, in particular Starstroi and its subcontractor SU4.[22])

Backup webpages 1, 2, 3, 4


Sakhalin EvidenceBoston Globe: The Russian power play on oil, natural gas reserves: 23 August 2008(In one of the most blatant instances, Shell Oil was forced to yield control of its operations off Sakhalin Island in exchange for a payment of $7.4 billion from state-dominated Gazprom. Most outside analysts estimate that Shell’s share was worth $15 billion to $17 billion.)The Observer: Shell comes under fire for role in Sakhalin audit: 31 August 2008 Shell accused of manipulating environmental report: 1 September 2008

Environmental Leader: Shell Criticized for Manipulating Environmental Audit Report: 2 September 2008

Ethical Corporation: Shell’s Sakhalin influence: October 2008

DAVID GREER AFFAIR ‘Pipeliners All!’ Shell’s memo to Sakhalin: Published: June 5 2007 22:29 | Last updated: June 6 2007 13:07

As if laying pipelines across Sakhalin Island, described by Chekhov as “hell”, were not enough, the engineers battling the elements there have to put up with their boss’s motivational memos.

In a leaked email from David Greer, the deputy chief executive of Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, the consortium running the Sakhalin 2 project, he reveals that he despises cowards and urges his staff to “Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way”.

Much of the memo appears to have been drawn from a speech by General George S. Patton to US troops ahead of the D-Day invasion, when he said: “When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble player; the fastest runner; the big league ball players; the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win – all the time.”

The Patton link was noted in a posting to an forum by Mark Bisset.

Sakhalin 2 has had a troubled history, hit by rising costs and concerns about its environmental impact.

In a deal completed in April, Royal Dutch Shell and its Japanese partners were forced to allow Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled gas company, to buy a majority stake.

Mr Greer’s e-mail reveals the pressure the company is under to hit its schedule of delivering its first shipments of liquefied natural gas by the second half of next year and the unusual management techniques he is using.

“Pipeliners All! Many thanks to all of you for your contributions to this week’s Bi-Annual Challenge … and what a Challenge it is going to be for all of us!” the e-mail begins, cheerily enough.

“From the outset, I want to assure you that, despite the mutterings on the day and the challenges ahead, I have total faith in you and our collective ability to complete the task ahead of us.”

After the good news, though, the mood darkens. “However, some of the comments and body language witnessed at the Bi-annual Challenge meeting do suggest that PDP is running the risk of becoming a team that doesn’t want to fight and lacks confidence in its own ability. Surely, this is not the case? Pipeliners and Engineers love to fight and win, traditionally. All real engineers love the sting and clash of challenge.”

After more appeals to the pride of “real frontier professionals” comes the inspirational bit. “When everyone of you were kids, I am sure that you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league football players. Personally, I, like most others, love winning. I despise cowards and play to win all of the time. This is what I expect of each and everyone of you…”

“Strive to be proud and confident in yourselves, be proud of your tremendous pipeline achievements to date and lift up your level of personal and team energy to show everyone that you are a winning team capable to achieving this year’s goals. If you can crack this angle, I am very confident you can crack the job, with ease.

“So Lead me, Follow me or Get out of my way; Success is how we bounce when we are on the bottom.”

The memo was leaked to the website, which has long been a thorn in Shell’s side.

Shell confirmed the e-mail was genuine but was reluctant to discuss it further.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.

Shell shakedown: Fortune’s Abrahm Lustgarten reports how the world’s second-largest oil company lost control of its $22 billion project on Russia’s Sakhalin Island. February 1 2007: 12:10 PM EST


The news was stunning, even if rumors had been flying: Shell (Charts) was halving its ownership in the $22 billion project, cutting its stake from 55% to 27.5%, and Gazprom, the Russian gas giant, was stepping in, buying Shell’s share plus half the stakes owned by Japanese partners Mitsui and Mitsubishi, for just $7.5 billion – the equivalent, says a Shell spokesman, of “paying to enter on the ground floor, as if they were a shareholder at the beginning.” The foreign companies also agreed to absorb $3.6 billion of the project’s mounting cost overruns.

That Shell and its partners were victims of an unscrupulous campaign by the Russians to win leverage at the negotiating table is certainly true. The company’s loss of its controlling interest in what chief executive Jeroen van der Veer called a “key part of Shell’s upstream strategy,” amounting to an estimated 5 percent of its global reserves, is largely a story about the high risks of frontier international energy projects. But it is also a tale of how Shell misplayed a strong hand and, after 12 years of work, lost untold billions of dollars in future earnings.


Shell Pension SchemesPersonal Finance: Adjudicator tells pension funds, employers to play by the rules: July 29, 2005Personal Finance: Shell ‘improperly used’ surplus pension money: January 28, 2006(In the first ruling of its kind, a tribunal appointed by the Registrar of Pension Funds has found that the Southern African arm of petroleum giant Shell should repay millions of rands to its staff defined benefit pension fund.)

Personal Finance: Shell bid to grab R184m surplus stopped: 9 February 2008
(Mentions Jonathan Mort, so called “independent” Trustee of Shell Southern Africa Pension Fund)

Shell Contributory Pension Fund Winter 2008 (“Clive Mather, chairman of the trustees of the Shell Contributory Pension Fund (SCPF) has written to all members following the recent extraordinary events in the world’s financial markets.”)

FT Article: Shell pension scheme value falls 40% (Online article): 12 December 2008

FT Newspaper article, front page lead in (under “News Briefing” – “Shell’s pension dip”) plus main article on page 15 (“Shell pension scheme value fall 40%): 13/14 December 2008 Shell pension underfunded, contributions to raise: 12 December 2008

Daily Telegraph: Shell’s Dutch pension fund tumbles by 40pc: 12 December 2008

International Herald Tribune: Shell’s pension underfunded: 12 December 2003

Yahoo News: Shell’s pension underfunded: 12 December 2008

Reuters: UPDATE 4-Shell’s pension underfunded, contributions rise: 12 December 2008 Shell’s pension underfunded:12 December 2008

Scottish Television (stv): Shell’s pension underfunded: 12 December 2008 Shell’s pension underfunded, contributions rise: 12 December 2008

Reuters: NEWS UPDATE 3-Shell pension underfunded, contributions to rise12 December 2008

Trading Markets: UPDATE 3-Shell pension underfunded, contributions to rise: 13 December 2008

The Times: HSBC hit by fear factor as downturn spreads to Asia:13 December 2008 (“Royal Dutch Shell A fell 49p to £17.50 after reports that its Dutch pension fund has fallen into deficit, with stock market turmoil knocking 40 per cent off its value.”)

The Times: Need to Know: Royal Dutch Shell: 13 December 2008 (The oil company’s Dutch pension fund has fallen into deficit as share market turmoil knocked 40 per cent off the fund’s value, forcing the oil major and employees to increase contributions. The fund said that its funding ratio was 85 per cent at the end of November, down from 180 per cent at the end of 2007. A Dutch pension fund manager estimated the company would need around €2 billion to bring the funding ratio to 100 per cent.)

Daily Mail: Shell OAPs are latest victims of disgraced billionaire Madoff: 17 December 2008

The Times: Allegations in America pose threat to UK funds: 18 December 2008

Reuters: Shell says pension funds underfunded by $12 bln: 29 January 2009

Financial Times: Virtues of protection strategy spreading: 1 March 2009

Reuters: Shell says faces $8.3 bln pension hole: 18 March 2009

Bloomberg: Shell Reports $8.3 Billion Pension Deficit, Plans Payments: 18 March 2009

These links on separate webpage

Royal Dutch Shell initiativesWall Street Journal: Alternative State: 30 June 2008Sunday Times: Shell goes to paradise in search of cheap biofuel: 22 March 2009BusinessWeek: Public-Private Alliances to the Rescue: 7 July 2008

Put bluntly, a company can’t fully bounce back unless its customers and employees do. The connection wasn’t lost on Shell Exploration & Production in the months following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. About 70% of Shell’s oil and gas production occurs off the U.S. Gulf Coast, and in the interest of helping revive the region, the company began a multimillion-dollar social investment program called the Coming Home Campaign. The company sponsored the 2006 New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival, which it says resulted in $250 million in economic activity; it donated more than $750,000 to help police officers and volunteers obtain housing; and gave employees as much as $1,000 apiece to support neighborhood rebuilding and recovery efforts.

Daily Telegraph: Shell Guides: No stone was left untold: 29 August 2008 Green pioneers pitch for £40,000 of Shell funding (Shell Springboard): 2 September 2008

(Related: Climate–conscious firms urged to apply for Shell funding: 19 October 2008

The Earth Times: Shell and Motiva Contribute $4M to Recovery Efforts in the Gulf Coast: 18 September 2008

Webwire: American Red Cross Receives $1 million from Shell Oil Company and Motiva Enterprises LLC: 26 September 2008

FT: Investors let down by online reports: 29 September 2008 (Associated Rankings)

Convenience Store News: Shell Helps City Become “Green”: 6 October 2008

Reuters: Shell has planted 1 million trees with Tree Canada: 2 October 2008

(Related: Shell Canada: Shell and Tree Canada plant more than 700,000 trees: 12 October 2006

VANGUARD (Nigeria): University lecturers get Shell’s sabbatical research grant: 6 October 2008


International Herald Tribune: Companies with poor records on environmental damage try for change: 13 October 2008

Bloomberg News: Shell Quadruples Renewable-Energy Project Spending (Update1): 16 October 2008 Shell brings Urban Concept to Eco-marathon: 21 October 2008

Convenience Store News: Shell, Redner’s Markets Give Back: 3 November 2008

CNW: Government of Saskatchewan, Royal Dutch Shell and University of Regina establish international CO(2) storage assessment centre: 6 November 2008

Wikipedia plus CO2: 7 November 2008 ( Government of Saskatchewan, Royal Dutch Shell and University of Regina establish international CO(2) storage assessment centre) Royal Check On Health Centre: 14 November 2008 HM Visits State-Of-The-Art Health Promotion Centre: 14 November 2008

Reuters: The Salvation Army Joins 3 Major Motor Oil Brands to Help Others During Holiday Season: 18 November 2008

Houston Chronicle: Volunteers in Houston honoring MLK by helping out: 18 January 2009

(Among them are about 150 volunteers from Hope Worldwide, an international humanitarian organization, and 500 holiday workers from Shell Oil Co. and its Motiva Enterprises subsidiary who will sort and pack groceries at Houston Food Bank, tutor a children’s literacy program and plant dozens of trees.)

The Wall Street Journal: A Gamble in Qatar: 8 February 2009

Austin Business Journal: Shell makes donation to UT’s McCombs school: 19 February 2009

FT: Senior Lib Dems plot ‘auction for power’: 9 March 2009

Gulf Times: Qatargas, Shell sign supply research deal: 15 March 2009

Shell Education Services: The Times: How to inspire the next generation to do well: 18 March 2009

Shell Education Services

Fox Business: 2009 Shell Eco-marathon Americas: 27 March 2009

MarketWatch: 2,757.1 MPG Achieved at 2009 Shell Eco-marathon Americas(R): 19 April 2009

Shell LiveWIRE

( LiveWIRE Website launched 2002)

FT: Start-ups seek prize pay-off: 6 May 2008

FT: Business Briefing: 9 August 2008 Shell LiveWire: 2 March 2009

Shell Springboard

FT: Business must evolve to thrive in a high-cost fuel world: 3 October 2005

The Sunday Times: Small Business Digest: 16 October 2005 (no author name)

FT: Shell’s £40,000 for climate ideas: 15 October 2005

FT: Climate change also brings opportunities: 26 October 2006

Royal Dutch Shell Environmental PollutionNew York Times: “Shell Loses Suit on Cleanup Cost” (Rocky Mountain Arsenal): 20 Dec 1988New York Times: “Wide Impact Expected In Shell Pollution Case” (Rocky Mountain Arsenal): 21 December 1988The Independent (front page story) Government’s green agency invests millions in companies that pollute: 7 January 2003

Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute: August 2005

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: SHELL AND MOTIVA AGREE TO PAY $1.2 MILLION FINE: 25 January 2007

WWN: Shell Pays $1.2 Million Fine for Contaminating Water In New Jersey: 1 February 2007

The Guardian: Shell hires Bush’s environmental adviser: 5 February 2007

New York Times: Settlement for Coral Power: 15 November 2003

Environmental Leader: Shell Sued Over Texas Refinery Emissions: 8 Jan 2008

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Shell Chemical fined $166,530: 28 January 2008

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Shell Chemical LP and Shell Oil Company fined $345,744 Deer Park Refinery unauthorized emissions: 2 April 2008 Two refiners settle with Hartford residents: 17 July 2008

The Times-Picayune: Protesters call for Shell to pay La. $362 million: 20 August 2008

Carrying signs in a driving rainstorm demanding that Shell Oil Co. “fix the coast you broke,” about 25 environmental activists on Tuesday attempted to deliver a bill for $362 million to the corporation’s New Orleans headquarters.

Environmental Leader: Shell Criticized for Manipulating Environmental Audit Report: 2 September 2008

Contra Costa Times: Shell pays fine for 2006 spill: 25 September 2008

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: SOUTH AFRICA: Community takes on big polluters: 26 September 2008

The Guardian: Reviled firms lead responsibility list: 28 October 2008

Seattle Times: Shell to clean up 83 gas stations in W Wash: 18 November 2008

Department of Ecology News Release: Shell-Ecology multi-site cleanup agreement is state’s first: 18 November 2008

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Shell Chemical fined $345,744: 19 November 2008

The Guardian: Shell fined £18,000 for polluting ground waters in Grimsby: 26 November 2008

Radio New Zealand “Shell fights Commerce Commission action”:18 December 2008

New Zealand Herald: Watchdog says Shell Fuel ads misleading: (Front Page Story) 18 December 2008

New Zealand Herald: Watchdog says Shell fuel ads misleading: (Internet Version) 18 December 2008

New Zealand Herald: Open Letter from Shell to all New Zealanders: 18 December 2008

AlterNet: “Shell Monbiot Grills Shell Oil CEO: Is There Any Investment You Would Not Make on Ethical Grounds?: 8 Jan 2009

Environmental Protection Agency: Shell to Pay $1 Million Penalty, Enhance Pollution Controls for Clean Water Act Violations in Puerto Rico: 12 January 2009

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Chevron Phillips fined $168,416 and Shell Chemical fined $166,530: 28 January 2009 Shell to check for benzene: 20 February 2009

(Groundwater contamination: “A total of 8,400 gallons of benzene leaked from an underground pipeline that was used by Wood River Refinery while it was owned and operated by Shell Oil Co.”)

New York Times: Supreme Court considers who gets the tab for toxic cleanups: 24 February 2009

Environmental impact of Oil Sands Extraction

Daily Express: ENERGY FIRMS THREATEN POOR – OXFAM: 6 October 2008

United States Environmental Protection Agency: Shell to Pay $1 Million Penalty, Enhance Pollution Controls for Clean Water Act Violations in Puerto Rico: 12 January 2009

(Related Article: Washington Post: Obama compares oil sands to coal: 17 February 2009)

Convenience Store News: Ethanol Lawsuit Proceeds against Oil Companies: 4 March 2009

Daily Express Dirty Dozen List Most Energy-Inefficient London buildings: Shell Centre at No 5: 11 March 2009

FT: Emissions disclosure study puts Shell bottom of the big oil class: 16 March 2009

RPT-Shell agrees to settle TX refinery pollution suit: 23 April 2009

Houston Chronicle: Shell will pay millions to settle air pollution suit: 23 April 2009

New York Times: Shell Settles Air Pollution Suit: 23 April 2009

The Dallas Morning News: EPA echoes activists in challenging Texas’ air pollution permits, practices, commission: 23 June 2009

Public interest groups have sued Texas companies under the federal Clean Air Act to force pollution cuts that neither the state nor the EPA had achieved. In one such case, Environment Texas and the Sierra Club sued Shell’s massive refinery and chemical complex in Deer Park, near Houston, in early 2008.

Despite Shell’s state permits, the environmental groups found more than 1,000 occasions from 2003-06 when emissions exceeded hourly limits, which are meant to protect the public from acute, short-term harm.

On three dates, records showed, Shell emitted more toxic compounds in a single day than its permits allowed in an entire year.

EPA cites Shell Yubacoa for second water pollution violation: 8 Sept 2009

The federal environmental regulator’s latest complaint against the firm followed a $1.025 million fine that Shell Chemical Yabucoa paid in May for similar violations. EPA said that fine stemmed from a Dec. 31, 2008, report indicated that two or three of Shell Chemical Yubacoa’s diffuser ports were blocked by sand.

Forbes: Shell refineries settle with government: Associated Press, 03.31.2010, 02:40 PM EDT

ST. ROSE, La. — Two Shell chemical companies have agreed to install $6 million in pollution reduction equipment at two petroleum refineries in Louisiana and Alabama and upgrade a terminal in Puerto Rico as part of a Clean Air Act settlement with the federal government. Shell Chemical LP and Shell Chemical Yabucoa, units of Royal Dutch Shell PLC ( RDSA – news – people ), also will pay a combined $3.3 million civil penalty to the federal government, Alabama and Louisiana.

About $193 will go to Louisiana organizations for environmental education, teacher workshops and emergency operations. The new pollution control equipment will be installed at Shell Chemical refineries in St. Rose, La., and Saraland, Ala. The settlement was announced Wednesday by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.

NASDAQ: Shell To Pay $9.5 Million In Settling Clean Air Act Allegations: Mar 31, 2010 | 3:00PM


Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSA.LN) has agreed to pay $3.5 million in penalties and spend an estimated $6 million to install pollution-reduction equipments at three U.S. refineries to reduce harmful air emissions. The equipment is intended to cut output of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by more than 1,450 tons a year at the facilities in Louisiana, Alabama and Puerto Rico. Assistant Attorney General Ignacia Moreno said the settlement is an example of businesses’ effort to comply with government environmental regulations. “We will continue to work with industry to achieve compliance under the Clean Air Act to remove harmful pollution from the air we breathe,” she added. -By Jodi Xu, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-3037; [email protected] (END) Dow Jones Newswires 03-31-101334ET Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Los Angeles Times: Shell refineries reach Clean Air Act settlements: By Associated Press March 31, 2010 | 12:02 p.m.

ST. ROSE, La. (AP) — Two Shell chemical companies have agreed to install $6 million in pollution reduction equipment at two petroleum refineries in Louisiana and Alabama and upgrade a terminal in Puerto Rico as part of a Clean Air Act settlement with the federal government. Shell Chemical LP and Shell Chemical Yabucoa, units of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, also will pay a combined $3.3 million civil penalty to the federal government, Alabama and Louisiana. About $193,000 will go to Louisiana organizations for environmental education, teacher workshops and emergency operations. The new pollution control equipment will be installed at Shell Chemical refineries in St. Rose, La., and Saraland, Ala. The settlement was announced Wednesday by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.

BP, Chevron, Shell Settle Gasoline-Additive Pollution Cases on Long Island: By Bloomberg 4 August 2010


BP Plc, Chevron Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc units were among dozens of energy companies that agreed to pay $42 million to settle claims brought by communities on New York’s Long Island alleging contamination of water with a gasoline additive.

Multi-million euro fine for Shell and BASF: By Radio Netherlands Worldwide: 20 August 2010


A Brazilian court has ordered Shell Brasil and international chemical giant BASF to pay a total of 490 million euros in fines and damages in connection with the exposure of workers at a Sao Paulo factory to toxic substances, Brazilian media report. Workers suffered health problems including high blood pressure and cancer. The factory, founded by Shell in 1977 and later taken over by BASF, was closed down in 2002.

Shell, Basf Ordered to Pay $354 Million in Brazil Plant Contamination Case: Bloomberg 20 August 2010


The Brazilian units of Basf SE and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. were fined a total of 622 million reais ($354 million) after former workers suffered health problems because of contamination at a plant in Paulinia, Sao Paulo state, from the 1970s to 2002.

Brazil Court Fines Shell, BASF $654M For Toxic Leaks- Report: The Wall Street Journal 21 August 2010


BASF said the ruling was “absurd,” as the contamination was “caused and acknowledged by Shell,” according to the report.

Brazil Court Fines Shell, Basf for Making Workers Sick: Herald Tribune 21 August 2010


The plant was built in 1977 by Shell… Dozens of former employees of the plant have been diagnosed with prostate, thyroid and other types of cancer, circulatory, liver and intestinal illnesses, as well as infertility and sexual impotence, the statement added.

UK regulators to prosecute Shell for Bacton gas fire: Reuters 2 December 2010


LONDON Dec 2 (Reuters) – The UK’s Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive said on Thursday they will prosecute Shell UK (RDSa.L: Quote) for breaching legislation following an explosion and fire at the Bacton gas terminal in 2008.

Shell to be prosecuted over Bacton gas terminal fire:The Telegraph 2 December 2010


The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) told the energy giant’s UK subsidiary on Thursday that the company will be prosecuted jointly by both authorities. It will also be prosecuted for four contraventions of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations and one breach of the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations. An initial court hearing is set for January 20 at Norwich City Magistrates’ Court. A Shell spokesman confirmed that the company has been notified of the criminal prosecution, but declined to comment further.

Norfolk gas terminal explosion: Shell UK pleads guilty: Norwich Evening News: 4 May 2011


Shell UK admitted seven breaches of health and safety and environmental regulations following an explosion and fire at its Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk at a hearing today at Norwich Crown Court.

Shell tentative settlement of workers lawsuit alleging benzene exposure: WEAU News: 13 May 2011


Attorney Mike Brose, who is among the lawyers representing the former workers, says Shell reached the tentative agreement. He says the workers claim that they ended up with cancers like leukemia from exposure to benzene at the Uniroyal plant. It was used as a solvent in the rubber-making process.

Norway Raps Shell for Risking Oil Leak: 23 May 2011: The Wall Street Journal


LONDON—Royal Dutch Shell PLC has been rapped by Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority for a maintenance error on an oil well that had “major accident potential” and risked an oil leak.

The failure of all barriers to hydrocarbon flow from a well is very serious. An out-of-control well caused the explosion that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig last year, resulting in a three-month oil spill from a BP PLC well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Shell slammed for ‘serious’ safety slips: 23 May 2011: upstreamonline


Anglo-Dutch supermajor Shell has been hit with a safety order from the Norwegian authorities following an investigation into a well incident on the Draugen platform in December last year. The incident occurred during a wireline operation to replace a gas lift valve in well 6407/9-A-01. The operation resulted in the subsurface safety valve becoming stuck in the Xmas tree, blocking the upper mast valve, and leaving only one barrier against a potential leak.

Royal Dutch Shell Denial of Brazilian pesticide diseases: 23 May 2011 Friends of the Earth Netherlands


For a decade or more, beginning in 1977, Shell produced organochlorine pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin etc.) and other pesticides at a plant located near Paulínia, about 125 kilometres north-west of São Paulo, Brazil. The plant covered approximately 40 hectares.78 Due to its severe health impacts, by 1990 the use of aldrin and dieldrin was totally banned in the USA and Brazil.

Shell UK sentenced over Norfolk gas blast: 20 June 2011: UK Health & Safety Executive


The explosion blew the concrete roof off a buffering tank within the plant, hurling concrete and metal debris over a large area and sucking a nearby drain out of the ground. After investigating the incident HSE and Environment Agency (EA) jointly prosecuted the firm over safety, environmental control and pollution-prevention failures at the plant leading to the explosion.

Banana labourers sue Shell over pesticide harm: 20 June 2011: The I newspaper


Banana labourers in Latin America who claim they were left infertile and crippled by exposure to a dangerous pesticide have filed lawsuits against their former employers and chemical manufacturers, including the British-Dutch oil giant Shell.

Benzene Contamination Fears in Roxana Illinois: 22 June 2011: CBS St Louis


ROXANA, IL (KMOX) – Twenty-five years later, the Village of Roxana Illinois is being tested for known Benzene contamination. In 19-86 nearly nine-thousand gallons of Benzene leaked into the ground from a Shell Refinery pipeline. Connoco Phillips now runs the refinery, but Shell is still assuming the responsibility.

They say some Roxana residents have developed different types of Cancer, including Acute Myelogenous (AML) Leukemia,  associated with Benzene exposure. Some of the town’s people have already filed suit.

Oil and gas spills in North Sea every week, papers reveal: 5 July 2011: The Guardian


Shell has emerged as one of the top offenders despite promising to clean up its act five years ago after a large accident in which two oil workers died.

Shell shock: Energy giant censured for ‘fracking’ ads:6 July 2011 Mail & Guardian


Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell was ordered on Wednesday to withdraw claims about controversial shale gas drilling in an advertisement carried in several South African newspapers.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the company had made claims that were unsubstantiated and likely to mislead, in a complaint brought by a lobby group that is fighting a bid by Shell to explore for gas deposits.

Greens in shock over Shell drilling rights: 8 July 2011: Herald Sun


CONSERVATIONISTS say they may appeal a Government decision to allow Shell to drill near the World Heritage-listed Ningaloo Reef.

The Department of Environment said Shell could drill the Palta-1 exploration well, about 50km west of the Ningaloo Marine Park border, if it abided by conditions, including taking measures to avoid significant impacts on threatened species and migratory creatures such as whales.

The controversial decision has sparked outrage among conservationists..

WWF slams Shell reef drilling plans: 8 July 2011: News24

Another leukemia patient sues Shell, BP: 24 July 2011:

The complaint alleges that Shell has known about the dangers of benzene causing cancer for decades, but publicly minimized and hid those dangers.

Shell accepts liability for two oil spills in Nigeria: 3 August 2011: The Guardian

Shell faces a bill of hundreds of millions of dollars after accepting full liability for two massive oil spills that devastated a Nigerian community of 69,000 people and may take at least 20 years to clean up.

Shell admits liability for huge oil spills in Niger delta: 4 August 2011: The Independent

Oil company Shell could be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars after accepting responsibility for two devastating oil spills in Nigeria’s Ogoniland region.

Oil in Nigeria: a history of spills, fines and fights for rights: 3 August 2011: The Guardian

On Wednesday Shell admitted liability for two massive oil spills in Nigeria. Ever since oil was discovered in the country in 1956, it has been a source of strife

MOSOP Feels Vindicated by Shell Company’s Spill Admission: 5 August 2011:Voice of America

“We feel completely vindicated, and the only regret is that it took a court in the United Kingdom to get Shell to admit its culpability in oil spills that we already knew that they were culpable for,” Mitee said.

Lawyers representing the Bodo community of Nigeria’s Ogoniland region sued Shell in a British court. They said the oil company could pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Brazilian Indians demand Shell leave their land: Survival International: 6 Sept 2011


In a letter to the companies, the Indians warn that, ‘Since the factory began to operate, all our health has deteriorated – children, adults and animals’. The chemicals used on the sugarcane plantations are thought to be causing acute diarrhoea amongst Guarani children, and killing fish and plants.

Oil exploration under Arctic ice could cause ‘uncontrollable’ natural disaster: The Independent: 6 September 2011


Any serious oil spill in the ice of the Arctic, the “new frontier” for oil exploration, is likely to be an uncontrollable environmental disaster despoiling vast areas of the world’s most untouched ecosystem, one of the world’s leading polar scientists has told The Independent.

Shell to Pay $500,000 for Pollution in Texas: ABC News/Associated Press: 6 September 2011

The settlement was reached after Harris County accused Shell Chemical, a unit of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, of failing to notify officials about the toxic releases


Don’t hide facts about oil leak: The Herald

Shell Under Fire Over Silent Tactics: Spiegel Online

Shell Withholds Information On North Sea Oil Spill: UK Progressive Magazine

Leader: Onus is on Shell to come clean on North Sea oil spill: The Scotsman

Don’t hide facts about oil leak: Herald Scotland

Shell accused of secrecy over North Sea platform oil leak
: Aberdeen Press and Journal

Shell, govt spin machine keeps lid on worst UK oil spill for decade: RT

Shell accused of playing down spill as estimate rises: Aberdeen Press and Journal

Shell needs to come fully clean: The Independent

Shell ’should have been more open about oil spill’
: Herald Scotland

Shell less than transparent about worst UK oil spill in a decade: Greenpeace

So many questions, so few answers from Shell
: The Scotsman

Shell mum on flow from oil pipeline leak: Reuters

Leader: Oil is not well where information is concerned: The Scotsman

Criticism Is Growing Over Shell’s Response to Oil Leak
: New York Times

Shell’s reputation is tarnished by North Sea oil spill:

Oil spill exposes Shell’s ticking timebomb: The Guardian

Oil leak is threat to Shell hope in Arctic: The Telegraph

Anger as Shell fails to answer questions about spillage: The Scotsman

Shell could face fines over Gannet oil spill: The Telegraph (Extract: Royal Dutch Shell may face a criminal investigation and hefty fines in the Scottish courts for its oil leak, which is still trickling into the North Sea.)

Warning North Sea oil platforms could be near collapse: STV News 5 September 2011

Dutch officials wade into Niger Delta crisis: The Guardian (Nigeria): 18 October 2011

Nigerians seek $1 billion from Shell for oil spills: AFP 21 October 2011

Free access to US court documents filed against Royal Dutch Shell claiming $1B in damages: 24 October 2011

Nigerians seek $1 bln from Shell over oil spills: Reuters: Tuesday 25 October 2011

Shell Oil Company dumped toxic chemicals into waterway for over 60 yrs: 21 Jan 2012

Cleanup of Bayou Trepagnier in Norco is complete, DEQ says: The Times-Picayune:20 Jan 2012 (The bayou was used as an outfall for the Shell Norco refinery for about 80 years before the refinery switched its outfall to the Mississippi River in 1995, according to the DEQ.)

DEQ: cleanup completed at Bayou Trepagnier: 21 Jan 2012 09:24 GMT Daily Comet Online

Shell in Talks to Settle $653 Million Brazil Contamination Penalty: Bloomberg 1 March 2012


Shell Greenwash Section (and misleading advertising)Environmental Leader: Shell Catches Flak Over Green Ad, Releases Sustainability Report: 8 May 2007New York Times: Shell and ‘Flower Power’: 31 May 2007The Independent: Inside Story: Advertising environmentalism – Is it just greenwash?: 31 March 2008 (GREENWASH)


They say: Shell’s “Don’t throw anything away – there is no away” campaign features an ad with a cartoon oil refinery emitting flowers, accompanied by the claim that Shell uses its waste CO2 to grow flowers, and waste sulphur to make concrete.

Behind the greenwash: It turned out that Shell only recycled 0.325 per cent of its CO2 emissions in this way, and barely more of its waste sulphur. In November, the ASA welcomed Shell’s assurance that the ad would no longer be used. Shell is less keen to tell us all about its project to extract oil from the Canadian tar – just about the most climate-wrecking form of fossil fuel extraction one could imagine. Record complaints over ‘greenwashing‘: 25 April 2008


Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the ASA, said it was one of the fastest-growing areas of complaint and now formed a significant part of the watchdog’s role.

We have come across quite a number where claims are exaggerated or misleading or, in some cases, severely exaggerated.”

A number of the complaints against national and international advertisers were upheld, including Ryanair and Toyota, with Shell identified as one of the worst offenders.

It placed a series of newspaper adverts featuring an oil refinery with flowers emerging from the chimneys and the claim “we use our waste CO2 to grow flowers”.

However, Friends of the Earth complained that it implied most or all emissions were used, whereas the true figure was just 0.325 per cent of its CO2 output. The ASA upheld the complaint.

“This is an extreme example but what they were doing was taking their bit of good environmental practice and making a big claim about themselves and their products,” said Lord Smith, the former culture secretary.

Where a complaint is upheld the ASA can force the offender to change an advert or withdraw it altogether, which could result in a company losing a multimillion pound advertising campaign while gaining a mountain of bad publicity.

“Any misleading in advertising is bad for the consumer and not particularly helpful for the company because they will be found out,” said Lord Smith.

“I suspect Shell are somewhat embarrassed by their ‘we grow flowers’ claim because it’s such a ridiculous claim.”

Environmental Leader: Advertising Watchdog Sees Big Jump In Green Ad Complaints: 5 May 2008

Daily Telegraph: Shell adverts ‘misled’ consumers over environmental claims: 12 August 2008

Calgary Herald: WWF targets oilsands after court rules Shell ad is misleading: 13 August 2008

Campaign Magazine (BRAND REPUBLIC): Shell ad banned over ‘greenwashing’ claims: 13 August 2008

Financial Times: Complaint upheld over Shell advert: 13 August 2008

The ASA will announce today that it has upheld a complaint against Shell by WWF, the environmental charity, about the oil company’s claims that oil sands in Canada were a “sustainable” energy source.

Shell’s Canadian oil sands projects have proven controversial because they require much more energy and water than in traditional extraction and refining.

The ASA ruling says: “Because ‘sustainable’ was an ambiguous term, and because we had not seen data that showed how Shell was effectively managing carbon emissions from its oil sands projects in order to limit climate change, we concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.”

Under the ruling Shell cannot reproduce the advertisement, which appeared just once, in the Financial Times in February this year.

Shell said in a statement: “We accept the adjudication of the ASA.” It declined to comment on how many of

its advertisements contain claims about its environmental credentials, nor whether it would moderate the use of such terms in future marketing campaigns.

The Guardian: Shell rapped by ASA for ‘greenwash’ advert: 13 August 2008

Oil company’s claim that its work in Alberta’s tar sands was ‘sustainable’ is branded ‘misleading’ by Advertising Standards Authority.

The Guardian: WWF advert attacks Shell’s claims: 13 August 2008

The Independent: Shell rebuked for ‘greenwash’ over ad for polluting oil project: 13 August 2008

Environmental Leader: ASA: Shell Environmental Claims Violate Advertising Rules: 14 August 2008

The Independent: Time for multi-dimensional communication with oil companies: 15August 2008

For the second time in the last couple of years the Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell has found itself at the heart of the debate about greenwash in advertising.

In 2007 Shell ads suggested rather bizarrely that it had been using its waste CO2 emissions to grow flowers: the ad was condemned by the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). One year later another Shell ad has been banned. This time for suggesting that the company’s Canadian oil sand extraction operation was sustainable. Shell does not appear to have learnt its lesson.

Financial Post (Canada): Sustaina-bull: 16 August 2008

This week, petroleum giant Royal Dutch Shell had its knuckles rapped by the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over claims that its Canadian oil sands operations were “sustainable.” There is a certain rich irony in Shell being hoist by its own environmental petard. The company’s former CEO, Sir Philip Watts, once claimed that Shell’s commitment to sustainable development and corporate social responsibility were what elevated it above its rivals. That was before he was thrown out of the company for cooking the books.

For years, Shell has been kowtowing to the environmental movement, and has featured a rogues’ gallery of board members and executives who ranged between green radicalism and abject appeasement. Typically, as it groveled to defend itself in the ASA case, it quoted a report by the World Wildlife Fund, the very organization that had challenged its ad in the first place. One can’t help conjuring up the image of a dog licking the hand of its vivisectionist.

Blogger News Network: The origins of Shell’s “Greenwash” were back in 1997: 16 August 2008

The Guardian: Climate controls: The chairman of the ASA on the problems of greenwash…: 18 August 2008

EnvironmentalLeader: Shell Criticized for Manipulating Environmental Audit Report: 2 September 2008

Calgard Herald: Shell to pull ‘greenwash’ ad on Canadian oilsands projects: 24 September 2008

The ASA upheld a high-profile complaint against Royal Dutch Shell for an ad that ran, just once, in the Financial Times in February, claiming that oil sands in Canada’s wilderness were a “sustainable” energy source.

The Guardian: The great green swindle: 23 October 2008

The Guardian: It will take more than goodwill and greenwash to save the biosphere: 6 January 2009

AlterNet: Monbiot Grills Shell Oil CEO: Is There Any Investment You Would Not Make on Ethical Grounds?: 8 January 2009

The Wall Street Journal: Shell’s Green Ads Take New Tack: 2 February 2009

The Times: Advertising regulators get tough over “greenwash”: 3 February 2009

Environmental Leader: Shell Accused of Greenwashing, Again: 4 February 2009

Convenience Store News: Green Shell Ads Stress Innovations to Increase Oil Supply: 4 February 2009

Financial Times: Emissions disclosure study puts Shell bottom of the big oil class: 16 March 2009

The Guardian: Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels: 17 March 2009

Reuters: Shell goes cold on wind, solar, hydrogen energy: 17 March 2009

The Guardian: Shell’s subtle switch from renewables to the murky world of ‘alternative’ energy: 18 March 2009

The Times: Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment: 18 March 2009

The Guardian: Shoppers need clear labels to put a stop to ‘greenwash’: 23 March 2009

Financial Times: Clampdown on greenwash: 25 March 2009

The Guardian: Greenwash: Shell betrays ‘new energy future’ promises: 26 March 2009

Case against Shell dismissed: 6 September 2010


There was no evidence anyone was actually misled when Shell claimed its petrol was “designed to take you further” despite only increasing efficiency by less than 1 percent, the judge who dismissed the case against the oil company said.

Shell shock: Energy giant censured for ‘fracking’ ads:6 July 2011 Mail & Guardian


Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell was ordered on Wednesday to withdraw claims about controversial shale gas drilling in an advertisement carried in several South African newspapers.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the company had made claims that were unsubstantiated and likely to mislead, in a complaint brought by a lobby group that is fighting a bid by Shell to explore for gas deposits.

Shell ‘disappointed’ by ruling on fracking ads: 7 July 2011


Advertising Standards Authority orders the multinational to withdraw “unsubstantiated” and “misleading” claims it made in a series of full-page print advertisements

ASA BANS SHELL FUELSAVE ADVERTISING FALSE CLAIMS: UK Advertising Standards Authority 19 October 2011

Shell ads banned over fuel claims: PRESS ASSOCIATION 19 October 2011

Shell false claims over FuelSave featured on BBC TV Watchdog programme: 21 October 2011


Royal Dutch Shell Tax AvoidancePATENTS FOR HITLER By Guenter Reimann Copyright 1942 by Guenter Reimann PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAlN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.Extracts from pages 78/79/80/81/82The Survival of Liechtenstein. The story of the secret Oil International would not be complete without referring to Liechtenstein, Europe’s mystery state. Liechtenstein, with its capital, Vaduz, is the most remarkable country in war-time Europe. Situated in Central Europe, almost encircled by the Third Reich, it is the only place in the old world where people feel safe, with unprotected frontiers, with only a few policemen maintaining internal order-in short, an idyllic country. How did it escape Hitler’s armies? With a population of only I2,000, it could never have tried to defend its national existence. But we must not forget that the administration of this tiny state offered hospitality to corporations which sought a neutral centre for private empires, free from the struggle of national states and from taxation. This little country in war-torn Europe had been selected by I. G., by Standard Oil, and also by Shell as one of the centres for the super-national world empires. Its only apparent function is to enable private world empires or large corporations to escape from the risks of war and also from taxation.

The State of Liechtenstein, since it is “protected” by the Nazis, is sheltering an important international corporation which deserves our special interest, the International Hydrogenation Patents Co., Ltd. This company was founded by Standard- I. G. (now Standard’ Catalysts), i.e., by Standard Oil and I. G. as partners. Later a third partner joined the company, British- controlled Shell.

The “neutrality” ‘of Liechtenstein has been respected by Hitler. Consequently the International Hydrogenation Patents Company (I. H. P.) is still in existence. It had formed a subsidiary company in Holland, the International Hydrogenation Engineering and Chemical Company, “in order to give technical assistance” to other firms which may obtain a licence from I. H. P. This arrangement follows the usual pattern to form a special firm which becomes the sole owner of the “know-how” or of technical experiences vital for the use of complicated chemical processes. Such a device helps to extend the life of a monopoly beyond the time when patent rights expire.

I. H. P. was expected to playa great role; for it was intended to control the exploitation of I. G.’s synthetic-oil patents in the entire world, outside of Germany and of America. This long- term speculation did not materialize. For the only assets of I. H. P. were the I. G. hydrogenation patents. They were “sold” by Standard-I. G. to the new company in Liechtenstein for the sum of $ I I ,500,299. I0. At the same time Shell became the third partner in I. H. P. Thus the two biggest oil concerns in the world joined hands with I. G. in the control of the synthetic-oil patents. As producers of and traders in natural oil they were, of course, interested in curbing rather than promoting the new synthetic processes for production of gasoline from materials other than crude oil.

Shell, for instance, is the main supplier of oil for the British fleet and for the British home market. It is, therefore, not especially interested in the manufacture of synthetic oil from coal in England. But such a development would have been extremely useful for Britain’s economy. The British Isles lack deposits of crude oil. They have, however, an abundance of coal. Synthetic production of oil from coal would have been much more important for Great Britain than it was for Germany, and the greater financial resources of pre-war Britain would have made it relatively easy to finance a new synthetic coal-oil industry on an even greater scale than I. G. could do this in Germany.

The core of the problem was how to secure effective control of the entire field, Mr. Howard reported to the Executive Committee of Standard Oil on October 28, I 938 : “The high points of the matter are that Jersey and Shell acquire sufficient effective corltrol of the hydrocarbon synthesis process in the world outside of the United States so that their position as leaders in the entire tield of synthetic petroleum production is assured.”

Thus we see that whenever new processes for synthetic oil were discovered, Standard Oil and I. G. tried to bring the corresponding patents under their control and prevent the construction of competitive plants. All synthetic processes for oil were finally pooled, so that the new industry, even before it had come into existence, was already under complete control of one single group, with Standard Oil, I. G., and Shell as the dominant forces.

Documents and files which deal with these and other “agreements” between private empires and representatives of the Nazi state have been deposited in the vaults of lawyers and banks in Liechtenstein, the neutrality of which, we recall, is respected even by Adolf Hitler.

The Guardian: Shell: 3 February 2009

The Guardian: Offshore – and out of reach to the Revenue: 3 February 2009

Guardian newspaper article on the subject of “Tax avoidance” published in 2010.

Royal Dutch Shell Adolf Hitler / Nazi ConnectionDaily Express: MYSTERY DOCUMENT IN GERMAN FORGERY TRIAL: 13 January 1930 EXTRACTThe second denial came Sir Henri Deterding, who is at present at St. Moritz. The oil magnate interviewed by telephone, declared that he had never heard of the conspiracy against Russia until he read reports of the trial in the German newspapers and found to his amazement that his name had been dragged into it. “The first I knew of this case was when I saw reports in certain of the German newspapers ,” Sir Henri said. “I was naturally astounded. I read the names of the accused and searched my mind in and out if I had ever met them. I can’t recall a single one. I am not connected with this case on any shape or form.”New York Times: BERLIN, April 17 1932 (AP). – The “anti-lie” department of Adolf Hitler’s National Socualist party branded as false tonight a report from Stockholm that Ivar Kreuger had donated $24,000 to the German Fascist cause. “Neither Hitler nor any member of the party ever took a penny from the match king or his representatives,” the statement said. “The alleged disclosures are stinking lies. Various local comments hinting at a similar gift from the oil king, Deterding (Sir Henri Deterding, head of the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company), are a shameless swindle.” 18 April 1932

Daily Mirror: OIL KING BLAMES SOVIET FOR SHARE SLUMP: 22 April 1932 Page 3

Russian Bid to Defeat Royal Dutch Group Causes Flood of Selling

Sir Henri Deterding, head of the Royal Dutch group, told the Daily Mirror last night that the slump was a cunning organised attempt by Soviet Russia to smash the company and capture the world oil markets.

The Royal Dutch Shell group, the shares of which have suffered so severely, in addition to general troubles of the industry, have had other difficulties to face.

Daily Express: NEW ATTACK ON SIR H. DETERDING: 16 April 1932

I had shown Sir Henri Deterding head of the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, a translation of a vigorous attack on him published in Paris today in “Forces,” the financial newspaper…

Now “Forces,” reprinting the exclusive interview published last Monday in the “Daily Express,” accuses Sir Henri of being an enemy of France, of withholding vital statements of his companies investments and of secret dealings…

Hitler As Frankenstein: By Johannes Steel: Wishart & Co in 1933 – 185 pages

Johannes Steel (1908-1988) was the son of a German-Dutch landowner. When the Nazis took power in Germany he fled to the USA working as a journalist for the New York Post. Because of his prescience, which included predicting World War 2, he became widely followed, with a popular radio commentary in the U.S. during the war. (Information from Wikipedia)

Extracts from his book, Hitler As Frankenstein

From page 22

Finance is Adolf Hitler’s personal prerogative. Funds are centralised under his direction and he is virtually the only person who can authorise disbursements. It is no concern of the mass of the brown shirts, in the view of their leader, to know where the money comes from or how it is spent.

From pages 88 & 89

Dr. George Bell was present at several of these conferences as a delegate of Hitler and Deterding jointly. For Dr. Rosenberg, who at that time had been just two years naturalised in Germany, had become Hitler’s expert in foreign affairs, and he had advised Deterding, through the medium of Dr. George Bell, who brought about the contact, as to the attitude the Hitlerites would take in regard to the question of the Polish Corridor and the Soviet Ukraine, where there are rich supplies of oil. Rosenberg suggested to Deterding, through Bell, that at an appropriate moment unrest should be fostered in the Ukraine, and an attempt be made with the aid of Germany to wrest the Soviet Ukraine away from the Soviet Union and give it back to Poland, to whom it had belonged at the time of the ancient Polish kingdom. Germany in return should receive the Corridor back, so satisfying the Hitlerites’ nationalistic ambitions, and Sir Henri Deterding should be rewarded with mineral concessions for his efforts to persuade responsible British quarters to give tacit support to such an undertaking.

Anyway, from the day of the Ukrainian Conference, Deterding has been supporting Hitler with considerable sums of money (which found their way into the Hitler exchequer through Dr. Bell), hoping that in case the Hitlerites should come into power, they would pursue at any rate an anti-Soviet policy.

GERMANY PUTS THE CLOCK BACK: BY Edgar Ansel Mowrer: First published1933 By Penguin Books Limited

Extract from page 114

What foreign financier or Republican industrialist outside Germany would not have been proud to see his name on the list with such social stars as these? Rumour in Germany had it that Henry Ford befriended the party, perhaps out of admiration for its vigorous opposition to the Jews and its cavalier attitude to history. An American banker informed me that the late Ivar Kreuger told him before leaving New York on his last voyage that his (Kreuger’s) business interests in Germany would profit greatly by Hitler’s election to the German presidency. Sir Henry Deterding was accused by unfriendly Germans of having put up a considerable sum for the 1932 presidential campaign in the hope (or on the promise?) of being granted an oil monopoly in the ‘Third Empire.

The Border Cities Star: Soviet Paper In Bid for U.S. Trade: 3 April 1933 ( Pravda, commenting on raids against Soviet-owned oil stations in Germany, accused Sir Henri Deterding, head of Royal Dutch Shell, on inspiring them, remarking, “Deterding orders-Hitler acts.” “The German counter-revolution,” the newspaper said “is like a street-walker offering herself to an anti-Soviet group.” It charged Deterding helped finance the Hitlerites, who are now “the obedient agents of their benefactors.”) “Co-ordination”: 17 April 1933 (While still in Nazi good graces he went to London” called according to rumor by Sir Henri Deterding who was currying favor with Adolf Hitler in the hope of winning oil contracts for Royal Dutch-Shell.)

New York Times: HITLER ENVOY TALKS WITH BRITISH OFFICIAL: Rosenberg Sees Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs – Stays at Deterding Home: During the week-end Germany’s special envoy stayed at Buckhurst Park with Sir Henri W. A. Deterding, head of the Royal Dutch Company. With Dr. Rosenberg’s long-standing interest in Russia, it is assumed they discussed the Soviet oil monopoly. Sir Henry is bitterly hostile to the Soviet Government, owing to the confiscation of the Baku oil fields, which his companies owned. :9 May 1933

New York Times: J.P. Morgan Denies Giving Any Sums to Nazis; Accused With Others in Book by a German: 26 August 1933

STEVENS POINT DAILY JOURNAL: Ex-Nazi Member ‘Opens’ Mystery of Hitler Finances: Friday, 1 December 1933 Page Four


The book “Hitler as Frankenstein,” recently published by Wisbart & Co., and written by Johannes Steel, a former member of the nazi movement, although apparently not in the uniformed branch, contains some extraordinary facts about nazi financing – if facts they are. If they are not, they ought to be proven untrue by those against whom the charges are made.

Great Britain is listed in the book as one of the most productive fields for the hitlerites’ money-collecting activities. The main contributor appears to have been  Sir Henri Deterding, the untiring advocate and organizer of foreign action against Soviet Russia. The nazi emissary Alfred Rosenberg persuaded him that the nazis would help him to important concessions in Ukraine.


The Second World War: By Johannes Steel: Published by Coviel-Friede, 1934 – 204 pages

…had been advocating foreign action against the U.S.S.R., saw great possibilities in this plan and from that day on Deterding supplied the Nazis with money. This money was transmitted by Dr. Bell, who was murdered by Storm Troopers in March 1933, when he tried to sever his connection with the Nazis. In order to explain the necessity for this murder, Alfred Rosenberg, then official plenipotentiary of Hitler, arrived in London on May 5, 1933.

New York Times: “REICH OIL MONOPOLY SOUGHT BY DETERDING”: 26 October 1934 (“LONDON, Oct. 25.-It is reported confidentially from Berlin that the object of Sir Henry Deterding’s recent visit to Chancellor Hitler at Berchtesgaden, where he stayed for four days, was to discuss the conditions for granting a monopoly to the Royal Dutch and Shell Companies of petrol distribution in Germany for a long period of years.)

The Montreal Gazette: Deterding is seeking Reich Oil Monopoly: 26 October 1934 (“Special Cable to The New York Times and Montreal Gazette”)

New York Times: PARIS PUSHES PLAN FOR STABLE EUROPE: However, Russia learned about this several months ago. She got wind of it not only through the public speech in London by Dr. Alfred Hugenberg, which afterward was repudiated, but also in the conversation that Alfred Rosenberg, Chancellor Hitler’s mouthpeice, had with Sir Henry Deterding, the head of the Royal Dutch Oil interests. 4 November 1934

The Daily Gleaner: The Second World War by Johannes Steel: Thursday 8 November 1934

Extracts from the above article…

Nazi foreign policy as a whole is based upon the plans of Alfred Rosenberg now the head of the Foreign Office of the National Socialist Party.

As far back as 1926, Rosenberg through his secretary, Dr George Bell, a Scotchman naturalised in Germany, established contact with Sir Henri Deterding, the British oil magnate. He informed Sir Henri of the foreign political programme which the National Socialists intended to pursue when they achieved power.

Sir Henri, as well as the directors of the Lena Goldfield, who for a long time had been advocating foreign action against the U.S.S.R., saw great possibility in this plan, and from that day on Deterding supplied the Nazis with money.

World Diary by Quincy Howe (pdf) (alternate online access): First edition published in 1934 by Robert M McBride and Company in USA: 424 pages

Extracts from pages 57, 58 & 59

While British industrialists were fighting against the same group of German industrialists whom Thyssen also opposed, the foremost British oil magnate gave funds to Hitler. His eyes, however, were on Russia rather than Europe. Sir Henri Deterding, director general of the Royal Dutch-Shell Oil Company, had married a White Russian wife and had lost valuable oil properties in Russia at the hands of the Bolsheviks. According to Antoine Zischka, author of The Secret War for Oil, a book that carries the endorsement of Francis Delaisi, Deterding maintained a special agent in Hitler’s camp-Dr. George Bell, a naturalized German of Scotch birth. “Through the hands of Bell,” wrote Zischka, “enormous sums of money flowed from Deterding and others as gifts to the National Socialist Party.” M. Zischka talked to Dr. Bell in Berlin in 1932 after Deterding had withdrawn his support because he had become “a little worried about Hitler’s Socialist tendencies.” Up to that time, however, Deterding gave money to the Hitlerites, all that his agent Bell asked for.”

What did the Nazis have to offer Deterding? Hitler’s autobiography contains a passage that advocates attacking the Soviet Union, prying the Ukraine loose from Communist rule, and setting it up as a republic, financed and exploited by Germany. Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler’s chief adviser on foreign policy, had worked out the same scheme in greater detail in the plan that bears his name, and Deterding’ s persistent hostility to Russia made the Nazis his natural allies.

From page 333

Sir Henri Deterding, chairman of the board of the Royal Dutch-Shell Oil Company, lunched at the White House together with James A. Moffett, Federal Housing Administrator and former vice president of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. Afterward, Deterding and Roosevelt engaged in a long private conversation.

Page 334

The fact that Deterding had contributed to Hitler’s campaign funds accounted for his high opinion of Fascism as an aid to the industrialist And his approval of Roosevelt’s attacks on the money changers provided still further evidence that the New Deal merely marked the rise of the industrial magnate and the fall of the financial magnate.

Nazism: An Assault on Civilization. Multiple authors (18): Published by Harrison Smith and Robert Haas. New York. Publication Year: 1934

Extract from page 223

Then there is the League for Ukrainian Independence, of which Hetman Skoropadski, the successor of Simon Petlura, is the chief, Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler’s chief of intrigue the patron, and Messrs. Coty, Deterding and Rothermere the financiers.

From page 224

In his opening speech at the Sèvres Russian Orphanage Sir Henry Deterding told the boys: “A new leader has come in Europe. . . . The day is not far distant when you will be marching home to Kieff and Moscow and Petrograd. . . . The rule of the Bolshevik bandits is drawing to a close.”

Meriden Record: Europe’s Oil Napoleon Seen Winner Over U.S. Rivals For World Trade As Ethiopian Concession Fades: 13 September 1935

Sir Henry Deterding “strong man of the billion dollar Royal Dutch Shell corporation…”


Enjoys Nazi Monopoly

Thus, when his American oil rivals invaded Europe, and brought much of their supplies from Soviet Russia, Sir Henri opened up a broadside denouncing the U.S. interests for buying “immoral” products. Critics point out that the huge importations of Soviet oil and byproducts by Germany before Hitler’s rise to power have been curtailed and that Sir Henri now enjoys a monopoly in the Nazi state.

It explains why Royal Dutch Shell shares are comparatively stable after several startling slumps in the past, London financial figures declare. Though it has been revealed that many of the sober Dutch investors who own almost half of Royal Dutch Shell shares would be far happier if Sir Henri meddled less in international affairs and more with looking after the oil domain that radiates from the modest headquarters situated at The Hague, Holland’s capital.


Lady Deterding, wife of Sir Henri Deterding was granted a divorce at The Hague, Netherlands, on grounds of misconduct. The Court will decide custody of the children June 16. Alimony had been arranged privately. Sir Henri Deterding, K.B.E. was the principle founder of the Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which operated oil wells in the Dutch East Indies. It merged later with the British Shell Oil Co., to form the Royal Dutch-Shell Co.

Daily Express: Sir Henri Deterding, Oil King, To Resign: Front Page: 26 October 1936

Sir Henri, himself a mystery man, has chosen another mystery man to succeed him…

Napoleonic Audacity

He became Director-General of the Royal Dutch company…

Sir Henri, who retains his seat on the board, is 70, Dutch born and a naturalised Englishman.

The Scotsman: £1,100,000 Gift to Germany FOR FOOD PURCHASE: 28 December 1936 (Contains confirmation of the report of the gift)

The Nation: Dutch State and literary newspaper: Sir Henri Deterding and the Dutch agriculture: Purchase for Germany: 28 December 1936

The Manchester Guardian: £1,000,000 TO BUT FOOD: Helping Germany: SIR H. DETERDING PROVIDES MONEY: Tuesday 29 December 1936


£1,000.000 TO BUY FOOD

Helping Germany


The report is published in the official Nazi newspaper “Angriff,” under the headline “Deterding Plans Gigantic Gift of Foodstuff for the “Winter Help.”

The Times: Dutch Shell for Germany: Surplus Farm Produce: Sir Henri Deterding’s Scheme: 30 December 1936



The rise of a new agrarian party in the Netherlands, dominated by Sir Henri Deterding, may result from the oil magnate’s large-scale purchases of Dutch farm products for Germany, officials here said today.

Another result may be preferential treatment for Sir Henri’s oil interests in a grateful Germany, these authorities indicated.

Sir Henri, chairman of the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, a Hollander recently married to a German woman, yesterday announced he was making available 10,000,000 guilders (about $5,400,000) to buy products of Dutch farms – which have had a hard time finding markets- for shipment to Germany, where shortage of foodstuffs is a serious problem.

The Argus (Melbourne) Wednesday 30 December 1936 Page 1

With the object of assisting Dutch farmers, Sir Henri Deterding has given £1,000,000 for the purchase of farm products for export to Germany.

The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA) Wednesday 30 December 1936 Page 11 Complete Article


£1,000.000 Purchase Of Dutch Produce THE HAGUE. December 28.

With a view to assisting Dutch farmers, Sir Henri Deterding, Director-General of the Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., has given £1,000.000 to purchase produce for export to Germany. The gift is said not to be concerned with politics. Sir Henri Deterding married a German, Fraulien Knaack, in June last year, and at present lives outside Berlin. His object is, as a Dutchman, to help both countries. He proposes to buy up vegetables and meat, unsaleable owing to over-production. The Dutch Government has agreed to issue special export licences.

The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA Thursday 31 December 1936 Page 17: Complete Article


Communism And Trade Barriers Aimed At

Australian Associated Pres.

THE HAGUE, December 29.

Indicating that his gift of £1,000,000 to purchase produce for export to Germany was aimed to circumvent economic restrictions and communisism.

Henri Deterding, Director-General o! the Royal Dutch Petroleum Co, said today:—”The main object of the Communists is to prevent co-operation between nations. They therefore started to create trouble in Spain six years ago, and the result is now daily visible.” Britain, he said, could be thanked for her policy of non-intervention which had prevented greater trouble among other Powers whose further co-operation would be the quickest remedy against infectious Communism. Reviewing the economic conditions obtaining in Holland, Sir Henri Deter ding said that the only solution was the diversion of surplus products to a country where they were wanted. Trade restrictions between Germany and Holland could then be safely cancelled. Criticising the present go:d policy Sir Henri Deterding declared that not gold but products of ]abor would have to serve as the means of exchange. He asked for financial and other support for his scheme under the motto, “Western Co-operation.” Meanwhile 30.000 pigs and 1,000 tons of bacon have already been bought with his gift, and a new industry has been founded at Haarlem. It is expected that Sir Henri Deterding’s scheme will slightly increase the prices of dairy produce in the United Kingdom, of which Holland is a substantial supplier. Australia will undoubtedly benefit to some extent, but the increase in British purchases from individual nations is likely to be small. Australian circles hope that a considerable part of the gift will be devoted to buying Dutch eggs, which strongly compete with Australian eggs. This would be marked assistance and would go far to ensure a successful Australian export season.

Version also published same day in The Sydney Morning Herald on page 10

The Aryan path, Volume 7, Issue 6: Indian Instituteof World Culture: Theosophy Co (India) Ltd 1936

Extract from page 262

Deterding, Director General of Royal Dutch Shell, gave funds to the Hitler movement and even French munictions makers contributed to Hitler’s war chest. GERMANY: Petticoat Philanthropy? Monday, Jan 11, 1937: Sir Henri, who was knighted by King George V in 1920, has for many years had his chief residence in London’s swank Mayfair, but last week he was sitting in his new house near the German capital and showed signs of developing into a good Berliner. His big Germanic gesture as 1937 opened was to place 10,000,000 Dutch guilders ($5.475,000) at the disposal of Dutch farmers so that they might export their superfluous green stuffs, fruit and cattle to Germany without loss to themselves and with cost to food-starved Nazis much reduced. This “non-political and exclusively humanitarian” gift received the special commendation of The Netherlands Government. Though Sir Henri last week retired from his Royal Dutch Director Generalship, it was being said in London financial circles last week that he is not the sort of man to be idle very long, that he is probably laying bait to hock concessions and contracts from Dictator Hitler as soon as Germany gets back her “stolen” colonies.

Entry in diary of Joseph Goebbels made on 12 January 1937: Elke Fröhlich: The Diaries of Joseph Goebbels, all fragments, Munich, New York, London, Paris 1987, Part 1, Volume 3, p. 8

“Hilgenfeld says WHW Deterding has donated 40 million.”

This was a reference to a 40 million Reichsmark donation made by Deterding to the German Winter Reiief food donation scheme known by the acronym “WHW”. Part of the funds received were diverted by Goebbels for other purposes e.g. to build a giant factory for Volkswagen.

Related extracts from translated Wikipedia article

In the prewar years, the largest item on the revenue side, however, were the “donations from companies and organizations…

The Winter’s Fund was therefore an indispensable financier of the Nazi People’s Welfare, which in turn ran a “Nazi racial-genetic biology people care.” Primarily the Nazi People’s Welfare aimed with its affiliated organizations aim to promote the “genetically healthy” and “racial quality” within the meaning of a “people care”…

Time Magazine article “THE NETHERLANDS: Serene & Royal” published 18 January 1937. (Extract: Prince Bernhard zu Lippe-Biesterfeld, at the time his engagement to Crown Princess Juliana was announced (TIME, Sept. 14), was a minor salaried employe of the great German chemical trust I. G. Farben-industrie Aktiengesellschaft, and a Nazi Storm Trooper. As the future Prince Consort of The Netherlands he became a naturalized Dutch subject and swore allegiance to his future mother-in-law Queen Wilhelmina (TIME, Jan. 4). This made no difference to Nazi Party fanatics who insist, “Once a German always a German!” Last week rampant Nazis were whooping against the ex-German and ex-Nazi bridegroom in almost every German newspaper.)

The Advertiser (Adelaide), Saturday 23 January 1937 page 23

Extract fro page 23

Awaiting Goering’s Return

The Berlin correspondent of “The Times” adds:—”Germany at last seems to realise that certain Nazi trends In respect of Spain and elsewhere can no longer be hidden in a mist of words. This does not mean that she will not pursue the trends to the logical end, but it does strengthen the arguments of those advising Hitler that present German policy in Spain is not worth the risks. Hitler himself may be more cautious, but much depends on the mood in which the Air Minister (General Goering) returns from Italy.” Reports from other sources suggest that while Germany would undoubtedly welcome tentative conversations at present regarding possible economic readjustments, she will not allow any interference with her military Four-Year plan. She may even for that reason refuse Sir Henri Deterding’s offer to buy £1,000.000 worth of foodstuffs from Holland for Germany.

New York Times: Powerful Henri Deterding, Who Rivals Standard Oil: 12 June 1938 (A Left-Wing Historian Surveys the Life and Activities of The Petroleum Baron THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD: The Life of Sir Henri Deterding.)

THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL: Sir Henri Deterding Is the Arch-Villain in This Biography: SUNDAY 12 June 1938 Page 3



Two years ago Sir Henri Deterding, the Anglo-Dutch oil king and head of the Royal Dutch-Shell Group, retired ad director general of the Royal Dutch unit, at the age of 70, though he remained on the board of directors. In his semiretirement, Sir Henri will feel flattered that his dear enemies, the leftists, still regard him as “the most powerful man in the world,” and they charge him with financing Hitler, admiring Mussolini and generally propping up “decadent capitalism: all over the world.

Sir Henri is not merely a fascist, he is the paymaster and wet nurse of a dictatorship.


THE GALVESTON DAILY NEWS: BIG OILMAN: A Leftist Life of Sir Henri Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell: SUNDAY, JUNE 12, 1938 Page 19


The author believes that the enormous financial and political power wielded by a really big-shot capitalist like Deterding is a very dangerous influence in world affairs – and particularly when such power is used, as Deterding, according to the author, used it in the post-war years to organize the forces of fascism in Europe, to wage an unremitting propaganda campaign against Soviet Russia and to subsidize the nazi movement in Germany. Besides subsidizing the nazis in the hope that Hitler will launch a crusade against Soviet Russia, Deterding, says the author, also admired Mussolini, sides with Franco, has his doubts about democracy, believes that youth should be “disciplined” and all “idlers” shot.

Under Deterding, Royal Dutch Shell immediately launched bitter price wars to get into Standard Oil’s big markets.

As a businessman, his life has been an astonishing success, and his achievements in building up gigantic financial structures have been prodigious. The author readily admits all this, but grows alarmed because Deterding is on the fascist side – as if such a man could be on any other side! – and concludes his book by saying: “And we have seen the world which he, in many ways the most powerful man in it, has produced. Can we afford to leave our world in such hands any longer?”

Time Magazine: Ruddy Old Gent: THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD: THE LIFE OF SIR HENRI DETERDING—Glyn Roberts—Covici-Friede ($3): 27 June 1938 (“Author Roberts thinks his backing of Hitler and his admiration for Mussolini are based on his hatred of Communism, which was born of frustration when he lost the oil of the Caucasus. And his second wife was a White Russian, his third a German.”)

New York Times: HENRI DETERDING DIES IN ST. MORITZ: 5 February 1939

SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS Dutch Shell Head Dies In Holland: Sunday 5 February 1939


Sir Henri Wilhelm August Deterding was an outstanding figure in world financial affairs because of his role as guiding genius of the great Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, of which he remained a director after retiring from the post of director-general.

He was known as a bitter foe of Soviet Russia and was named at a Moscow trial as having aided in a plot against the Soviet government.

Daily Mirror: 9s.-a-Week to Millions: 6 February 1939 Page 7

Oil King Sir Henri Deterding, seventy two, who died at St. Moritz, Switzerland, began as a nine-shillings-a-week bank clerk and rose to riches so great that eventually he matched dollar for dollar with Rockefeller.

Sir Henri was a Dutchman. He was knighted by the British Government “for services rendered.”

Hitler is said to have received his financial support. He hated the Soviet Government, admired Mussolini and aided France.

He was thrice married. His third bride was thirty-one years his junior.

Daily Express: Deterding millions in Germany: 6 February 1939. Front page.

The Times: Sir Henri Deterding Obituary: 6 February 1939

The Montreal Gazette: SIR H. DETERDING, 72 DIES IN SWISS HOME: Monday 6 February 1939 Page 14


Netherlands – born Magnate Built Up Royal Dutch Petroleum Company

Was Ardent Hitler Supporter and Foe of Soviet

Sir Henri, who possesses a personal fortune estimated at between $150,000,000 and $200,000,000, retired from the direction of the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company.

He became an ardent Nazi after Adolf Hitler attained power in Germany.

A practical token of his admiration for the anti-Communist regime of Hitler was given in 1937. He gave $5,000,000 with which to purchase Holland’s surplus food products. He stipulated that the proceeds should go to Germany’s “Winter Help Fund.”


THE OSHKOSH NORTHWESTERN: Rockefeller of Europe, Sir Henry Deterding, Dies: MONDAY FEBRUARY 6, 1939 Page 7


Son of Sea Captain Rises in Meteoric Career in Fashion Comparable to Horatio Alger Tales – Strong Pro-Nazi and Bitter Russia Opponent Carves Way to Success.

He became an ardent nazi after Adolf Hitler attained power in Germany.

Deterding immediately saw the possibilities and set out to tie Royal Dutch and Shell together, the better to compete with Standard Oil.

A practical token of his admiration for the anticommunist regime of Hitler was given in 1937. He gave $5,000,000 with which to purchase Holland’s surplus food products. He stipulated that the proceeds should go to Germany’s “Winter Help Fund.”

THE CALGARY DAILY HERALD: An Oil Napoleon: 7 February 1939 Page 4


FEW careers in modern times have been more strange and eventual that that of Sir Henri Deterding.

An inveterate enemy of Soviet rule in Russia because of confiscation of the rich Caucasus oil fields, he later swung over to the support of the Hitler movement in Germany and helped to finance it.


Daily Express: Oil King will be buried in Germany: 7 February 1939

Oil king will be buried in Germany

Daily Express Correspondent

GENEVA. Monday.- The two sons of Sit Henri Deterding, the oil magnate, who died on Saturday, were expected to fly to St. Moritz yesterday, but arrived tonight by train with other relatives.

After meeting Lady Deterding, they decided that their father should be buried on his estate at Dobbin, Mecklenburg, North Germany. The family will leave tomorrow morning.

Daily Express: OIL KING MOVED HIS MILLIONS: 7 February 1939 page 11

Divorced, went to live in Germany

Daily Express Staff Reporter

SIR HENRI DETERDING, the oil king, once estimated to have a personal fortune of £25,000,000, has left practically nothing in England.

FULL ARTICLE: Daily Express 6 Feb 1939 Page11

Mein Kampf: By Adolf Hitler: Publisher: Reynal & Hitchcock. Place of Publication into English: New York. Publication Year: 1939.

Extract from publishers annotation on page 184.

Rosenberg and others have been convinced that British support could be gained for any serious attempt to undermine the Russian system and therewith stamp out the Third International as a fomenter of world revolution. Two reasons for this conviction are usually advanced. The first is the support received by White Russian revolutionists from English sources, which support has occasionally been deflected to Hitler. The second is the feud long since in progress between certain British financiers and the Soviet system. Sir Henry Deterding, the oil magnate, is the most manifest of the partisans of Germany;

New York Times: DETERDING HONORED BY NAZIS AT FUNERAL: Oil Man Is Praised as Enemy of ‘Bolshevism and Pan-Jewry‘: 11 February 1939

The Times: SIR HENRI DETERDING’S FUNERAL: 11 February 1939 (Extract: Herr Hitler and Field-Marshal Goring, and the Dutch Government, sent wreaths to the funeral to-day of Sir Henri Deterding at his estate at Dobbin, Mecklenburg)

Daily Express: Hitler sends wreath: Front Page: 11 February 1939

Hitler sends wreath

Daily Express Staff Reporter

BERLIN, Friday.- Hitler has sent a wreath with a red, white and black ribbon worded “Adolf Hitler,” to the funeral today of Sir Henri Deterding, multi-millionaire Dutch oil king, who died last Saturday. 

Time Magazine: Royal Dutch knight: 13 February 1939 (He backed Hitler in Germany, added a German residence to his English, Dutch and Swiss homes.)


Extract from above newspaper article…

The last honors bestowed upon the late Sir Henri Deterding by high German officials furnish eloquent confirmation of the story that he was one of the original financial backers of the Nazi movement. A Dutchman by birth and nationality, he attained the chairmanship of the Royal Dutch (Shell) Oil Co. and was knighted by the British king.

The Milwaukee Sentinel: 16 March 1939 Sir Henri Deterding gave 7 ½ million marks to Hitler in 1929

Daily Mirror: £250,000 FOR A BABY: 20 March 1939 Page 13


EIGHT weeks after the death, of her seventy-year-old millionaire husband, Lady Charlotte Deterding, aged forty, has given birth to a daughter in a Berlin nursing home. Under the terms of her oil-magnate husband’s will the child will inherit about a quarter of a million pounds. Lady Charlotte is to name the baby after her husband, Sir Henri Wilhelm August. The baby will be christened Henrietta Wilhelmina Augustine. Sir Henri left more than £2,000,000, but the exact figure is not yet known. Lady Charlotte was Sir Henri’s third wife. They were married in 1936. She was formerly Fraulein Charlotte Knaack and acted for some time as his secretary.

(New York: Covici-Friede. 1938. Pp. 448. $3.00.)


Deterding, though pretending to remain free from politics, has always been a political factor. His has been a crusade for capitalism. He has poured millions of dol- lars into the hands of Franco and the Fascist cause in Spain; has aided Hitler and the Nazi program in Germany; has admired Mussolini; and has given unstinted financial support to White Russia.

The Bee: Danville, Va., Tuesday, February 13 1940 Editorial Section Page 6


Up to the end of December -Shell made deliveries of oil products to Germany In fulfillment of its regular contracts. This operation caused no stir among insiders who know the background of the story. It all dates back to the operations of Sir Henri Deterding the born Hollander with a French first name, knighted by His Britannic Majesty and buried on his beloved estate in Northern Germany. Deterding sewed up the German market by substantial cash payments to the rising Nationalist party before and after they came to power.

New York Times: Herman Rauschning’s Talks With Hitler: 18 February 1940 (“…Henri Deterding had told Hitler that Mexico had the laziest population in the world, and rich prizes for Germany to grasp.”)

The Glasgow Hearald: SON OF “NAZIS FRIEND” MISSING: LIEUTENANT DETERDING R.N.V.R.: 1 October 1940 (“…Sir Henri Deterding, the oil king and the man whom Hitler once described as the “great friend” of the Germans”)

DAILY EXPRESS: Naval officer son of oil king missing: 1 October 1940 Page 3


Naval officer son of oil king missing

Lieutenant Henry Deterding, R.N.V.R. reported missing while serving with the Fleet Air Arm, yesterday, is the son of the late Sir Henri Deterding, the oil king and the man Hitler once described as “the great friend of the Germans.” Sir Henri died in Switzerland last year, and he was buried at his estate at Dobbin, Mecklenburg. A wreath was sent by Hitler.

War in the Twentieth Century: By Willard Waller:. Publisher: Dryden Press. Publication: New York: 1940.

Extract from page 350

The British oil magnate, the late Sir Henri Deterding, contributed to Hitler’s campaign funds because he saw in the Nazi movement an instrument to attack the Soviet Union and to regain his petroleum wells that the Russians had confiscated.


LONDON- Lieut. Henri Deterding, son of the late oil king, Sir Henri Deterding, is a prisoner of war, the admiralty informed his wife at her Daventry home today. Lieut. Deterding previously was reported missing while on active service with the fleet air arm.

Evidence that Royal Dutch Shell financed fascist death squad: 2011 introduction to article dated 11 December 1940 published by The Evening Independent in Clearwater Florida.

Collected Works of Michal Kalecki: Volume VI: Studies in Applied Economics By Michal Kalecki, Jerzy Osiatynski 1927-1941


One can definitely say that over the last five years Deterding was one of the main centres of counterrevolution and that he was one of tbe main financial backers of those who were supposed to carry out his incessant prediction of ‘a near end of the Soviets’.


3. Since when and to what extent Deterding has been financing those who planned armed intervention in the Soviet Union it is difficult to say. From time to time there surface only echoes of this work going on in secret. The trial of counterfeiters of ten-rouble notes in Berlin has revealed their unquestionable link with Deterding. At the same time, they were in close contact with General Hoffmann, one of the main advocates of a French-German military alliance whose objective would be a ‘penal expedition’ to the Soviet Union.

Subsequently, apparently not unfounded revelations have surfaced that Deterding had given large subsidies to Hitler who more than once has extended his offer in the role of the future conqueror of the Soviet Union in the services of international capitalism. An integral part of Hitler’s programme is forcing the separation from the USSR of the Ukraine and the Caucasus with its oilfields. Deterding’s subsidies for Hitler must have been large since, not content with these lofty dreams about the future triumphs of German arms, Deterding is said to have received much more concrete pledges from Hitler: the Nazi leader supposedly promised that after he comes to power, he will give Deterding the German oil monopoly in exchange for a payment of £1.5 million and a 20% share in the profits of the monopoly.

Los Angeles Times: Reporter Tells What He Saw: 25 October 1942

But, says Childs, Sir Henri Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell was not himself innocent of working with Hitler. Sir Henri backed him with a huge sum when the Nazi party was about to fall; and it was the oil man’s objective to get Hitler to attack Russia so that Sir Henri might take over the Baku oil fields.

Way for America by Alexander Laing Published by Duell, Sloan and Peace 1943 378 pages


FROM PAGE 241 & 242

Edgar Ansel Mowrer published in 1933 a book entitled Germany Puts the Clock Back. In it he said (p. 146), “Sir Henri Deterding was accused by unfriendly Germans of having put up a considerable sum for the 1932 presidential campaign in the bope (or on the promise?) of being granted an oil monopoly in the Third Empire.”


Deterding made it plain that he too considered Hitler’s dictatorship a stabilizing influence which could join in an orderly removal of the blunders of Versailles. If he was secretive about his early backing of the Nazis, later he came out as an eamest advocate of a scheme which greatly eased Hitler’s problems. Deterding put his own estate manager in charge of the Western Cooperation plan, under which benevolent Dutchmen bought up the Dutch food surplus and gave it to German organizations. Public acknowledgment of Deterding’s own first contribution to the scheme placed it at a sum which converts to more than five milion dollars. This was after Hitler and his henchmen had committed some of their most loathesome brutalities.


Sir Henri admired “the Higher Simpletons” -not a term of derision in his usage. His four favorite examples were Mussolini, Pope Pius XI, Thomas A. Edison, and John D. Rockefeller Jr. Of his talk with Mussolini be said, “We both agreed that the coping-stone of education is a sense of discipline and respect .for prestige.’


He is alleged to have spent millions helping Hitler to power. Whether he did or not, he expressed over and over again his admiration for Fascist methods and for a kind of international cooperation on his own terms.

PAGE 245

Sir Henri was an unashamed admirer of Fascism.

PAGE 247

Recalling these circumstances, ask yourself whether the opinion of the “most powerful man in the world” -the praiser of Mussolini and backer of Hitler-the announced hater of the Soviets–tbe autocrat of the second largest oil company in existence-had a decisive effect upon the course of the British government.

PAGES 249 & 250

In desperate recognition of their mistake in backing the more dangerous of two tyrants, most Britons began to oppose the Hitler regime as much as they dared. Sir Henri then indicated where his own sympathies still lay by moving his headquarten from the house near Windsor Castle to another which he had recently purchased between Berlin and Rostok. He was buried on his German estate. The bishop who delivered the funeral oration said (according to the New York Times) that the oil man had fought Bolshevism with the “boldness of a Napoleon and the will-power of a Cromwell.” Placing the last wreath, an official emissary added, “In the name of Adolf Hitler, I greet you, Henri Deterding, the great friend of the Germans.”

U.S. FIRMS FUELED GERMANY FOR WAR: The New York Times:19 October 1945


I. G. Farben Report to Gestapo Bares Gains From Cartel Agreements on Oil


HOECHST, Germany. Oct. 18-

Experience in the field of lubricants that was of the “utmost importance in warfare” and enabled Germany to be “completely prepared from a technical point of view” was the fruit of the cartel agreement between I. G. Farben industrie and various American industries, including Standard Oil of New Jersey, it was revealed today.

The information was contained in a report prepared for the Gestapo by the huge chemical combine soon after the secret police had started to question its directors.

The reason for the Gestapo’s suspicion was a report in The Petroleum Times of Dec. 25, 1943, by a Professor Haslam that stated that American industry had gained rather than lost as a result of its agreement with I. G. Farben. The report sought to refute this, mentioning as the results of this cooperation its ability to improve propellants with lead tetraethyl, the improvement of lubricants by the extraction of paraffines and asphalts, and information on agents for lowering solidifying points.

“It need not be pointed out that without lead tetraethyl modern warfare could not be conceived,” the report declared. “Since the beginning of the war we have been in a position to produce lead tetraethyl solely because, a short time before the outbreak of the war, the Americans had established plants for us ready for production and supplied us with all available experience. In this manner we did not need to perform the difficult work of development because we could start production right away on the basis of all the experience that the Americans had had for years.”

License Granted Despite Contract

A license on the process to I. G. Farben was granted “at the urgent request to Standard Oil to comply with our wish,” the report added. “We were not entitled by our contract to this request and later on we learned that the War Department in Washington had consented only after long deliberation.”

The improvement of lubricants by the extraction of paraffines and asphalts by means of propane, which was “of the utmost importance for modern warfare,” also resulted from “a contact with an American,” the report said. “We first received from America instructions for the industrial application of this process. Besides, we were informed of agents for lowering solidifying points. * * * In this case that favorable effect of the contract with America on Germany becomes evident if one considers that, while the product was developed in Germany, its most important use as an agent * * * was first recognized by the Americans.

“Finally It may be mentioned that knowledge of certain substances that prevent the oxidizing of portions of propellants and oils as well as the forming of mud and pitching of pistons is also of American origin,” the report continued.

Benefited by Our Experience

The Germans were advised “in a very liberal manner of the action of lubricants in automobile and air-plane motors” and were thus started on the development of synthetic lubricants for war use so that, at the outbreak of the war, “we were completely prepared from a technical point of view. In this way we obtained standards not only from our own experiences but also from those of General Motors and other big American motor-car manufacturers,” the report added.

Standard Oil and the Anglo-Netherland Royal Dutch Shell group also aided I. G. Farben in 1934 and 1935 to purchase large quantities of mineral-oil products, the report said. These products, including airplane benzine and lubricants, were bought for a market price of $20,000,000 and stored as reserve stocks.

“The Government inquired of I. G. Farben whether it would be in a position to buy these quantities for itself, but actually as trustee for the Government on account of its friendly relations with Standard Oil,” the report added. “The fact that we actually succeeded after the most difficult negotiations in buying these quantities demanded by the German Government from the, Standard Oil Company and the Royal Dutch Shell group and importing them into Germany was only because of the support of the Standard Oil Company.”

The New York Times
Published October 19, 1945
Copyright © The New York Times

The Plot against the Peace: A Warning to the Nation! By Michael Sayers and Albert E. Kahn. Publisher: Dial. New York. Publication Year: 1945.

Extract from page 100

*Other international financial backers of Nazism in its early years included Sir Henri Deterding, Anglo-Dutch chairman of the oil trust Royal Dutch Shell;

New York Times: Propaganda Success in Britain Vaunted by Rosenberg to Hitler: 10 January 1946 (“NUREMBERG, Germany, Jan. 9- One of Alfred Rosenberg’s reports to Adolf Hitler on his work in winning friends for nazism in foreign countries came to light today”: Later Extract: ‘Rosenburg also told Hitler that “a firmer bond” had also been established between Rosenberg’s British division and Sir Henri Deterding, the oil magnate, and his associates’)

German-French Unity, Basis for European Peace. By Hermann Lutz:. Publisher: H. Regnery Co: Chicago. Publication Year: 1957


From page 113

It is noteworthy for our topic that William E. Dodd, American Ambassador to Germany from 1933 to 1937, learned soon after his arrival in Berlin that the French munitions makers had helped Hitler to power.

More illuminating than Dodd’s entry in his diary is an entry in a German diary, according to which General von Schleicher, while Chancellor, said early in January, 1933:

Hitler must be, arrested, his Party dissolved and outlawed, the whole scandal of the Nazis’ revenues brought to light, their connection with the armaments industry abroad, with Deterding, with Ivar Kreuger made public.

Pages 114 & 115

In the early thirties, Deterding regarded the struggle against the Communists as “the only task left for him to accomplish.” 24, He was, thus, a natural ally of Adolf Hitler.

In 1932, the Netherlands’ press reported that the Dutchborn Sir Henri had subsidized the NSDAP with 4,000,000 gulden, a statement which was allegedly never denied .

Immediately after the Reichstag fire, February 27, 1933, Bell brought Dr. Gerlich several important documents, one of which was a contract of the NSDAP, represented by Chief-of-Staff Roehm, with the English-Dutch petroleum King Deterding, concerning the financing of the SA in the years before the seizure of power, against the assurance to favor his oil interests after the seizure of power.

Page 116

Deterding had also been a good friend of Hermann Göring ever since the latter’s early days.

It is noteworthy that E. A. Mowrer heard “unfriendly Germans” accuse Deterding of having put up a considerable sum for the 1932 presidential campaign in the hope (“or on the promise?” Mowrer inserted) “of being granted an oil monopoly in the Third Empire.” When Sir Henri Deterding died in February, 1939, the German press was instructed not to mention that he had been a sincere friend of Nazi Germany.

Extracts from page 117

If Sir Henri was thought liberal enough to give the weak British Fascist leader two million marks, it may be safety concluded that his contributions over the years to the Hitler movement, infinitely more important to him, comprised a good many millions of marks. He may surely be considered the largest single foreign financial backer of the NSDAP.

One of these was Fritz Thyssen, who also mentioned to Mr. Emery Reves, the editor of his book I Paid Hitler ( New York, 1941), that Sir Henri Deterding was one of the foreigners who gave financial aid to Hitler.

Page 180

These principles decreed by the victors in 1945 and 1946, lead logically to the conclusion that, for instance, Viscount Rothemere as an influential moral supporter, and Sir Henri Deterding as an outstanding financial supporter of the Hitler movement were Offenders, ranking as Activists, and would have been liable to the severe sanctions under Article IX.

Annual, Volumes 19-20: Obshtestvena kulturno-prosvetna organizat͡sii͡a na evreite v Narodna republika Bŭlgarii͡a. T͡Sentralno rŭkovodstvo: Further info: Published 1984?: Journal/Magazine?

From page 165

… suggested Hitler as the new Chancellor. These circles possessed over 1 500 000 000 marks. At the Nurnberg trial, and later in a number of documents, it became obvious that the Nazis had got large sums of money from the big capital. A letter of the ex-Chancellor Bruning, published in 1947, read: “The subsidies for the Nazi party came from people who could hardly be expected to finance it …” “and further: “One of the major factors for Hitlers ascent … was the fact that from 1923 on he had been receiving large sums of money from abroad”. According to the American journalist and historian P. Lockner, Henry Deterding alone had subsidized Hitler with 10 000 000 marks. (Henry Deterding was an English Petroleum tycoon.)

The Mexican petroleum industry in the twentieth century: ByJonathan Charles Brown, Alan Knight: 352 pages: Publisher: University of Texas Press (1 Jun 1992) Language English: ISBN-10: 0292765339: ISBN-13: 978-0292765337


In July 1937, Ortiz Rubio (ex-President, fellow-Michoacano, ex-head of Petromex, and an old ally of Cardenas) sent the president a resume of a French publication that, Oniz Rubio alleged, “serves to confirm the various reports which I previously submitted to you “; the gist of the publication was that global political alignments-from the First World War to the rise of Nazism-were determined by the epic struggle of Deterding’s Royal-Dutch Shell and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. Accordingly, Deterding-who was certainly sympathetic to fascism–channeled cash to Hitler (“thanks to English money Hitler conquered Germany”), in the hope that Hitler would revalidate Royal-Dutch’s lost Caucasian concessions:

Intercontinental press: 1985


One of Hitler’s earliest foreign financial backers was Sir Henri Deterding, head of the giant Royal Dutch/Shell oil company.

The Nuremberg trial: a history of Nazi Germany as revealed through the Testimony at Nuremberg: By Joe Julius Heydecker and Johannes Leeb: Published by Greenwood Press, 1975: ISBN 0837181313, 9780837181318: 398 pages


This book is an attempt to make the material of the Nuremberg Trial available to a wider public in a comprehensible form. The verbatim reports of the court proceedings alone run to fortytwo volumes; in addition, there are tens of thousands of written and printed pages of further documents, which at the time of the Trial were not yet written or were not yet available…

Extract from page 111

Hanussen’s presumable informant, the engineer Georg Bell, who had his information from the highest Nazi circles, escaped to Austria, but before leaving he gave some secret Nazi papers to a Munich newspaper editor, Fritz Michael Gerlich. But his office was likely to be searched, and so those papers had to disappear as quickly as possible. The last to see them was the former State President of Württemberg, Eugen Anton Bolz. Gerlich’s secretary, Miss Breit, clearly remembered the contents of the documents. They contained: detailed facts about the Reichstag fire; an agreement between the Nazi Party and the British oil millionaire, Deterding, concerning the secret backing of the SA in return for preferential treatment of his German interests; a list of witnesses to the fact that Hitler had murdered his niece Geli Raubal; plans for discrediting the Church; plans of SA Chief of Staff Roehm for getting rid of Hitler after the Nazis’ seizure of power. The men who had seen these dangerous documents had to die.

The Trial of the Germans: an account of the twenty-two defendants before the …: By Eugene Davidson: Pub. Date: October 1997: Publisher: University of Missouri Press: ISBN-13: 9780826211392: ISBN: 0826211399

Page 229

Some support of Hitler came from foreign countries. The Dutch oil magnate Henri Deterding, who had an estate in Mecklenburg, made sizable contributions.

Doing business with the Nazis: Britain’s economic and financial relations … By Neil Forbes: Pub. Date: December 2000: Publisher: Taylor & Francis, Inc.: Format: Hardcover , 280pp: ISBN-13: 9780714650821: ISBN: 071465082X

From page 149

Deterding was known to be an admirer of the National Socialists. Indeed, he retired from Shell in 1936 after the London directors became so alarmed at his activities that they approached the British government for help. With the coming of war the search began for guilty men; Sir Henri, who had just died, was named as one of the industrialists suspected of facilitating Hitler’s rise to power through financial support. The American consul in Hamburg reported in 1934 that Deterding, because of his fear of the Soviet Union, was favourably inclined toward the German government as a necessary safeguard against the spread of communistic ideas in western Europe. The consul added:

Sir Henri had contributed fairly large sums to the National Socialists treasury before the advent of the Party into power and since Herr Hitler’s assumption of the Chancellorship; he had offered to supply the Reich with all their oil requirements in return for payment in blocked reichsmarks …

Deterding supported the Nazis in the belief that the alternative would be the downfall of the Reich and a violent swing to the left.

Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies: By Martin Allen: Publisher M. Evans and Co., 2002: Length 342 pages

Extract from pages 19 & 20

After Hitler and the Nazis took power in 1933, Rosenberg returned to Britain for a second visit, only this time he made a beeline for the palatial Ascot home of Sir Henry Deterding (which, by a curious coincidence, was only a mere three miles from Fort Belvedere). It was reported in the press that: In light of the present European situation, this purely private talk between Hitler’s Foreign Adviser (Rosenberg) and the dominant figure in European oil politics is of profound interest. It supports suggestions current in well-informed political circles that the big oil interests had been closely in touch with the Nazi Party in Germany.

It was also claimed that Rosenberg had previously met Deterding during his Winterbotham sponsored visit of 1931. If Deterding and Rosenberg had met in 1931, then Winterbotham and de Ropp must have known. This is significant because Deterding was one of the wealthiest men in the world, and it can hardly be a coincidence that after Rosenberg’s visit in the early 1930s, Deterding loaned Hitler almost £55,000,000.

(information was sourced from “Who Financed Hitler”.)

Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approachby Ronald J. Berger Published in 2002


The party also solicited money from beyond German borders ° Hitler himself went on several fund-raising tours in Switzerland, Austria. and Czechoslovakia. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini had his government provide support. Through Rosenberg the party received money from wealthy British oilman Sir Henri Deterding.

The Hitler/Hess deception: British intelligence’s best-kept secret of the Second World War: Published by HarperCollins, 2003: 324 pages

Exract from pages 206 & 207

The subject of their telephone conversation is not known, but as head of the Nazi Party’s own foreign affairs office and a close confidant of Hitler’s, Rosenberg had been party to the peaceable attempts of 1940. During the early 1930s he had been invited to Britain where he had been introduced to many eminent Britons, including Lord Hailsham and Lord Lloyd, Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, and Sir Henry Deterding, one of Britain’s wealthiest men and a prodigious businessman. After meeting the persuasive Rosenberg, Deterding would loan Hitler the enormous sum of £55 million.

The British press had reported:

In light of the present European situation, this purely private talk between Hitler’s Foreign Adviser (Rosenberg) and the dominant figure in European oil politics [Deterding] is of profound interest. It supports suggestions current in well-informed political circles that the big oil interests had been closely in touch with the Nazi Party in Germany.

(information was sourced from “Who Financed Hitler”.)

Energy for the 21st Century: A Comprehensive Guide to Conventional and Alternative Sources: By Roy L. Nersesian: 402 pages Publisher: M.E. Sharpe (15 Dec 2006) ISBN-I0: 0765613239 ISBN-13: 978-0765613233

Extracts from page 156

Hitler inadvertently took down three leading oil company executives. The first was Deterding, who was showing signs of mental imbalance (megalomania) as his management style became increasingly dictatorial.

Deterding’s position against communism hardened with his marriage to a White Russian and his third to a German. Deterding became a Nazi sympathiser because of their determination to rip communism out root and branch. Deterding would not be the only industrialist, statesman, monarchist, or church leader to support the Nazis for this reason. The board of directors removed Deterding from his position in 1936 by forcing him to retire, and he died six months before the war started. Shell’s penchant for collegiality and corroboration in the decision-making process might be partly in retain to Deterding’s last years of rule.

The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century: Wall Street and the Rise of the Fourth Reich by GlenYeadon, with John Hawkins: 2008

Extract from pages 48 and 49

Other foreign sources of support for Hitler came from Sir Henri Deterding, the founder of Royal Dutch Petroleum. Deterding was strongly opposed to communism and, as early as 1921, was a Hitler admirer. Deterding was interested in discovering those forces that would remove once and for all the dangers of social or colonial revolutions. At the inquiry into the Reichstag fire, Johannes Steel, a former agent of the German Economic Intelligence Service, testified to Deterding’S financial support for the Nazis. The Dutch press reported that Deterding had given Hitler about 4 million guilders. By the 1930s, Deterding began secret negotiations with the German military to provide a year’s supply of oil on credit. In 1931, Deterding made a 20 million pound loan to Hitler, allegedly for a promise of a petroleum monopoly once the Nazis were in power. In May 1933, Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler’s representative, met with Deterding, confIrming the close link between big oil and the Nazis. In 1936, the board of directors forced Deterding to resign over his Nazi sympathies.

The Gentleman Talk of Peace: By William B Ziff: Published by Macmillan Company in 1944: Length 530 pages

Extract from page 337.

The German Fuehrer had risen to power with the indirect assistance of powerful reactionary British groups. Industrial giants such as Henri Deterding, head of the vast Shell Oil combine, and the immensely wealthy Guinness family, are said to have contributed heavily to the Nazi war chest.

Shadow Rulers: The Euro-American Trojan Horse By Ernest Millington: Publisher: (11 Oct 2009) 708 pages: ISBN-10: 1440122962 ISBN-13: 978-1440122965

Page 401

Another Bank investor that came aboard the Hitler boat was Sir Henry Deterding. Head of Royal Dutch-Shell Oil, whose motives, according to Marrs, arose from the Fuhrer’s Mein Kampf disclosures of a plot to regain the oil field assets of Baku, Grozny and Maikop, through the subjugation of Russia.

Maxim Litvinoff: Arthur Upham Pope: Published by L B Fisher in 1943: 530 pages

Extract from page 173

…influential figure in the background was the rabidly reactionary Sir Henry Deterding, later a friend of Adolf Hider, who beyond doubt lavishingly financed a good deal of anti-Soviet propaganda.

Hitler, Volume 1 by Konrad Heiden: Publisher Eugen Prager, 1936 – Biography & Autobiography – 388 pages

Extract from page 224

They showed such exact knowledge that the agency of wire-pullers was immediately suspected, until in 1929 Hitler positively denied any financial connection with the East-Elbe Brown Coal Syndicate. On the other hand, financial connections with Sir Henry Deterding, head of the Koninklijke Shell-Oil concern, owner of Russian oil wells confiscated by the Bolsheviks, and the main instigator of the anti-Bolshevik campaign, were never denied either directly or indirectly.

The Weimar Republic. By Eberhard Kolb (Translated by P. S. Falla and R. J. Park): Published by Routledge in London. 2005.

Extract from page 115

Germans in foreign countries, and some magnates such as Ford, Deterding and Kreuger, provided the NSDAP with large sums, partly from ideological motives (anti-Semitism) and partly from political and economic calculation.

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF THE LUFTWAFFE: By Werner Baumbach first published in 1949. Translated into English in 1960.

Read this related article” Adolf Hitler thanks Sir Henri Deterding for donation of a million reichs-marks

The Gestapo: a history of horror By Jacques Delarue: Publisher Morrow, 1964 – History – 384 pages

Page 29

In fact the S.S. settled bloody accounts, liquidated their adversaries and the accomplices of the old days who had become dangerous. They murdered the engineer, George Bell, who had acted as intermediary in the financial transactions between Hitler and Sir Henri Deterding:

Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution and Other Illusions: By Jerry Fresia:. Published by South End Press. Boston. Publication Year: 1988.

Extract from page 129

Sir Henry Deterding, Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, pointed out in 1932, the “Nazis are a great stabilizing force which would come in handy against Soviet Russia.”

Tycoons & Tyrant: By Louis P. Lochner. Published in 1954 by Henry Regnery Company in Chicago.

Extract from pages 110 and 111: It is generally believed that Sir Henry Deterding, the Dutch oil king , who owned an estate in Meckenburg and supported all anticommunist movements, helped Hitler in a big way. It is alleged he gave as much as ten million marks in the course of the years. I have been unable to find concrete evidence to prove this point.

Footnote on page 111: Walter Gorlitz and Herbert A. Quint in their Adolf Hitler-eine Biographie (Stuttgart, Steingruben Verlag, 1952), p. 279, merely refer to Deterding as one of a number of financial backers.

The Windsor Secret: By Sir Peter Allen: Published in 1983 by Stein and Day, New York. Originally published in the UK as “The Crown and the Swastika.”

Extract from page 42

There is strong evidence that the Nazis had also attracted a very substantial amount of international finance, especially from Britain and France. In mid-1933 Rosenberg made a second and last visit to Britain. It was on this occasion not an outstanding success, however, because by then the Nazis were firmly in power and Rosenberg’s innate pomposity and blundering got the better of him. He could not resist spouting tactless remarks about the Jews, which were then reported in the press. Despite this setback, his visit included one particularly noteworthy event: He spent an entire weekend at the palatial home at Ascot of Sir Henry Deterding. Several newspapers gave reliable accounts of the visit. Reynolds Illustrated News wrote: “In the light of the present European situation, this purely private talk between Hitler’s foreign adviser (Rosenberg) and the dominant figure in European oil politics is of profound interest. It supports the suggestions current in well-informed political circles that the big oil interests have been closely in touch with the Nazi Party in Germany.” Another source claimed they had met in 1931 as well-perhaps the reason for the drive into the countryside that had so pleased Rosenberg? The meeting between Rosenberg and Deterding was significant because Deterding was one of the wealthiest men in the world, and it is a fact that in the 1930s he loaned Hitler between 30 and 55 million pounds. His clandestine meetings with Rosenberg, though, gave little indication of the plots, intrigues, and secret transfers of money that were occurring between Hitler and Deterding. Deterding’s oil business had suffered severe financial losses as a result of the Soviet takeover of his interests in Russia, and he was, per se, another dedicated anti-Communist.

The Blood of His Servants: By Malcolm C. MacPherson: Published by The New York Times Book Co in 1984

On page 63, Deterding is described as “a maniacal genius.”

Extract from page 128

Ever since Sir Henry Deterding’s death in Berlin in 1939, the ties with Shell and its banker Mannheimer had dissolved. Even more, now that the war was going badly for the Nazis, Shell wanted to disassociate itself from Deterding’s fanatic devotion to Hitlerism. In his last years, Sir Henry had suffered from megalomania, at one point writing, “If I were the dictator of the world, I would shoot all idlers at sight.” He embarrassed Shell’s management and its stockholders.

Earth Could Be Fair: A Chronicle: By Pierre Van Paassen: Published byThe Dial Press. New York. Publication Year: 1946.

Extracts from pages 393 and 394

That fellow Hitler is the God-given leader Europe has needed for a long time. He is going to straighten things out a little. To begin with, he will get us the Baku oil fields back. That’s as certain as tomorrows sunrise. Deterding and Colijn are supporting him, and every decent businessman in the land.

The Seven Sisters: By Anthony Sampson: 1975

(He died six months before the outbreak of war: memorial services were held in all Shell offices in Germany and Hitler and Goering both sent wreaths to the funeral on his estate.)

The Prize: By Daniel Yergin: Published 1992

New York Times: Review/Television; The Epic Of Oil, Catalyst Of Conflict : 11 January 1993 (“It concentrates especially on the unlikely partnership, out of which was born Royal Dutch Shell, between Marcus Samuel, the Jew from the East End of London who became the Lord Mayor of London, and Henri Deterding, the dashing Dutch oil man who turned into a Nazi supporter in his old age.”)

A Century In Oil: By Stephen Howarth: 1997

Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order: By F. William Engdahl

“On January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich. The final London visit of Alfred Rosenberg was in May 1933,this time as one of the inner figures in the new Hitler government. He went directly to the country home in Buckhurst Park in Ascot of Sir Henri Deterding, the head of Royal Dutch Shell and arguably the world’s most influential businessman. According to English press accounts, the two had a warm and eventful discussion. Rosenberg had first met Deterding during his 1931 London trip.  Royal Dutch Shell had intimate contact and support to the German NSDAP. While the details were kept secret, reliable British reports of the day were that Deterding had provided substantial financial support to the Hitler Project in its critical early phases.” (FROM PAGE 100) Rreview of “Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order”: 12 February 2008

“Later, the consequences from Baron Kurt von Schroeder’s January 4, 1932 meeting would have to be faced after he, Heinrich von Papen and Hitler secretly arranged a Nazi takeover. A year later, another meeting followed preparatory to acting. The Weimar government was weak, the scheme was to topple it, and it made Hitler Reichschancellor on January 30, 1933. On August 2, 1934 he seized absolute power as Fuhrer. British interests backed him, Royal Dutch Shell financed him, and the Bank of England “moved with indecent haste to reward” him with a vital line of credit. The rest, as they say, is history, and from it would emerge a new world order.”

The Guardian: Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil: 15 November 1997 (“After it merged in 1907 with its rival Royal Dutch, the Royal Dutch Shell company was formed; its first chairman was the Dutchman Henri Deterding. By the 1930s, Deterding had become infatuated with Adolf Hitler, and began secret negotiations with the German military to provide a year’s supply of oil on credit. In 1936, he was forced to resign over his Nazi sympathies.”)

The Observer: Oil behemoth that must evolve: 20 December 1998 (Page 34) (Unfortunately, Deterding was also an authoritarian who was strongly attracted by the ideas of first Mussolini and then of Hitler’s Germany. The scandal forced Deterding to resign in 1936)

New York Daily News Gossip Column: BIDDER SWEET NIGHT FOR LEO: 29 July 1999: (Gargia went on to have another romance, with 80-year-old Lady Lydia Deterding, the oil heress who amused him with stories about the sexual inadequacies of her ex-lover Adolf Hitler)

Boston Globe: Cloaked Business: 19 November 2001

Newly declassified United States intelligence records reveal in unprecedented detail how US and Allied firms systematically used backwater countries to conduct backroom business with Axis enterprises. The files peel away a whole new layer of collaboration, describing scores of so-called “shadow agreements” in which corporations disguised their ties with the enemy through the cover of other companies in neutral countries, from Spain to Sweden to much of Latin America.

The report said the two men also ran a steamship company that chartered tankers for Royal Dutch Shell, a Nazi collaborator that used Hitler’s slave laborers.

Sir Henri Deterding and Royal Dutch-Shell: Changing Control of World Oil 1900-1940:1 April 2003

The Times: A very British kind of scandal: why Shell is no Enron: 23 April 2003

When the British Shell company merged with Royal Dutch in 1906 it was soon dominated by a single despot, Henri Deterding, a brilliant trader who became increasingly autocratic and ended up a fervent admirer of Hitler.



USAToday: Royal Dutch Shell, Tom Cruise, YouTube and Hitler: (More than 60 years after the demise of Nazi Germany, people apparently remain fascinated by the evil deeds of Adolf Hitler and his equally evil henchmen. The new movie ‘Valkyrie‘ tells the story of the well-documented bomb plot against Hitler. )

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com: Royal Dutch Shell and the Nazi (updated with report of 4 day meeting between Deterding and Hitler): 5 January 2009

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony Cyril Sutton: 220 pages • Publisher: Clairview Books (5 Nov 2010) • Language English • ISBN-IO: 1905570279 • ISBN-13: 978-1905570270

Extracts from pages 101 and 102

One flow of foreign political funds not considered here is that reported from the European-based Royal Dutch Shell Standard Oil’s great competitor in the 205 and 3Os, and the giant brainchild of Anglo- Dutch businessman Sir Henri Deterding. It has been widely asserted that Henri Deterding personally financed Hitler. This argument is made, for instance, by biographer Glyn Roberts in The Most Powerful Man in the World.

Roberts notes that Deterding was impressed with Hitler as early as 1921:

… and the Dutch press reported that. through the agent Ceorg Bell, he (Deterding) had placed at Hitler’s disposal, while the party was “still in long clothes,” no less than four miillion guilders.

It was reported (by Roberts) that in 1931 Georg Bell, Deterding’s agent, attended meetings of Ukrainian Patriots in Paris “as joint delegate
of Hitler and Deterding.” Roberts also reports:

Deterding was accused, as Edgar Ansell Mower testifies in his Germany Puts the Clock Back, of putting up a large sum of money for the Nazis on the understanding that success would give him a more favored position in the German oil market. On other occasions. figures as high as £55; 000,000 were mentioned.”

Biographer Roberts really found Deterding’s strong anti-Bolshevism distasteful, and rather than present hard evidence of funding he is inclined to assume rather than prove that Deterding was pro-Hitler. But pro-Hitlerism is not a necessary consequence of anti-Bolshevism; in any event Roberts offers no proof of finance, and hard evidence of Deterding’s involvement was not found by this author.

Mowrer’ s book contains neither index nor footnotes as to the source of his information and Roberts has no specific evidence for his accusations. There is circumstantial evidence that Deterding was pro-Nazi. He later went to live in Hitler”s Germany and increased his share of the German petroleum market. So there may have been some contributions, but these have not been proven.

Fortune Magazine: 5 ways to keep your company alive: 7 March 2011

In the years before World War II, Shell was very much a one-man-band led by Sir Henri Deterding. Under Deterding’s firm control, the group prospered but also flirted with disaster as he saw Adolf Hitler as the man most likely to preserve Europe from Communism. Luckily for Shell, Deterding retired in 1936 before he could make any disastrous commitments. The company did not forget its narrow escape.


Will Royal Dutch Shell carry out threat to block Internet publication of its connection with Hitler and the Nazis?

By John Donovan

I have printed below my recent email correspondence with Mr. Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

As can be seen, it relates to Royal Dutch Shell’s support for Hitler and the Nazis.

I have already published a related article: “Royal Dutch Shell and the Nazis: Shell threatens legal proceedings

This is obviously a highly sensitive subject for Shell.

The reply to my email concerning our intention to publish related information from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”, authored by Shell’s paid historians, is the first time we have managed to elicit any comment from Shell on the subject.

Since Shell’s statement and associated threats are likely to be of most interest, I have printed it first, then again in appropriate order, within the entire correspondence.

The links immediately below are the pdf files which generated the threats from Royal Dutch Shell. Because they contain multiple pages, they take some time to load, so please be patient.

A History of Royal Dutch Shell: Pages from Volume 1

A History of Royal Dutch Shell: Pages from Volume 2

Despite the bluster, it is doubtful that Shell will take any action, because to do so would guarantee coverage of the subject by the mainstream media, a development Shell executives must dread.

The example (top right) from Volume 2 of “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” is the official announcement in May 1940 of the transfer of Royal Dutch’s legal seat to Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles located in the southern Caribbean Sea, off the Venezuelan coast. Royal Dutch Petroleum directors refused to locate the company seat in England. Perhaps they were not sure whose side they were on and were hedging bets about the outcome of the war? There was also antagonism between UK and Dutch directors in the Group, which seems to be a reoccurring theme.


From: [email protected]
Date: 3 March 2011 09:02:21 GMT
To: [email protected]

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your message. Except for this message the company does not wish to respond to you other than to convey that it strongly disagrees with your views and allegations, objects to your actions and reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyrights.

On an exceptional basis we tested your views about history with the relevant historians. They convincingly refute with evidence what you claim in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.

Best Regards,
Michiel Brandjes
Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate
Royal Dutch Shell plc

Registered office: Shell Centre London SE1 7NA UK
Place of registration and number: England 4366849
Correspondence address: PO Box 162, 2501 AN  The Hague,
The Netherlands



From: John Donovan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: woensdag 2 maart 2011 13:43
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LSC

Dear Mr. Brandjes

I have tried, without success, to send you two pdf files for your information. Both exceeded a size limit imposed by your server.

Each contains a selection of pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”.

The first pdf relates to Volume One, 1890-1939, and contains the front and back cover, plus three preamble pages, including  copyright and publishers details. In addition, it includes numbered pages 464 to 493 inclusive.

The second pdf relates to Volume 2, 1939-1973, and contains the front and back cover, two preamble pages covering publishers details and copyright information, plus the following numbered pages: 12, 22, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84 and 86.

Both include the following 2 page introduction, plus an article from the New York Times published on 26 October 1934 reporting on a 4 day summit meeting between Hitler and Sir Henri Deterding.


Royal Dutch Shell and the Nazis

By John Donovan

In the “Fortune Global 500 Ranking by Revenue 2010”, Royal Dutch Shell Plc is ranked as the second largest company in the world, after Wal-Mart Stores.

Many people know something about the oil giants’ controversial track record in Nigeria. It includes decades long plunder and pollution, with involvement in espionage, corruption, torture, murder, and other human rights abuses.

Some people are aware of Shell’s unscrupulous dealings with despotic regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Shell deliberately disguised shipping movements of Iraqi and Iranian oil during UN sanctions.

Very few people have any inkling of Shell’s pivotal support for Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Basically, Shell saved the Nazi Party when it was in danger of financial collapse and continued, for over a decade, to pump funds into the Nazi project. As a consequence, Shell was arguably indirectly responsible for over 30 million deaths in World War 2.

I have already published a series of articles on this explosive subject, the most recent major article under the headline: “Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets

The Dutch oil baron Sir Henri Deterding drove Shell’s support for the Nazis. He was the dictatorial founder of Royal Dutch Shell publicly described as the “Napoleon of Petroleum” and “The Most Powerful Man in the World”. Sir Henri was infatuated with Hitler and the Nazis.

An official account of the history of the oil giant – “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” – authored by eminent historians associated with Utrecht University, provided invaluable information during my research. The historians were given unrestricted access to Royal Dutch Shell archives. The Research Institute for History and Culture supervised the project. The entire 4-volume history published in 1997 costs £140 (over $200).

I have created pdf files from relevant pages of Volumes 1 & 2 for publication on the Internet. Public interest in knowing the truth about such historically important matters in my view outweighs copyright issues. Instead of the information being buried in an expensive set of history books available mainly in a few reference libraries for research by academics, the information is now freely available on the World Wide Web.

The public and investors should be aware of Shell’s Nazi past. Some people, perhaps relatives of those poor souls who suffered horrific deaths in the Nazi gas chambers, may wish to boycott Shell on these grounds alone. Shell’s Nazi business partner, the infamous I.G. Farben, supplied the Zyklon-B gas used during the Holocaust to exterminate millions of people, including children.

Information in Shell’s own authorised history of the company confirms that Shell pumped funds into the Nazi in a variety of ways, was at times anti-Semitic, sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis and conspired directly with Hitler.

Readers can see for themselves from the pages below that Shell continued its partnership with the Nazis in the years after the retirement of Sir Henri Deterding as leader of the company. Sir Henri remained a director after his retirement from the top job and made huge food donations to Nazi Germany that were widely reported. This meant that Shell was aware of his activities and allowed him to remain as a director; no surprise bearing in mind that Shell also continued its partnership with the Nazis (even after the subsequent death of Sir Henri).

As a long-term campaigner against Shell management misdeeds, my objectivity and impartiality is open to question. This is why I created pdf’s containing relevant pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”, so those interested can read Shell’s own account of relevant events.

Since the historians were paid by Shell, it follows that their objectivity and impartiality is also open to question. They also appear to have enjoyed some global jet setting funded by Shell.

The relevant historians  – Joost Jonker and Jan Luiten van Zanden – downplayed the central issue of Shell funding the Nazis on the basis that Hitler would not even agree to meet with Sir Henri. My own research, including newspaper reports from the 1930’s unearthed in The New York Times archive, revealed that this could not have been further from the truth.

Agents engaged in sinister activities jointly for Hitler and Sir Henri after the two men had a private four-day summit meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat in Berchtesgaden. Both dictators had designs on the Russian oil fields.

What transpired all those years ago obviously has no reflection on current Shell employees, the vast majority of whom are decent hard working people.

The dreadful events do however stain forever the name of Royal Dutch Shell and the brand name by which the company is best known throughout the world: Shell.

John Donovan

March 2011


You will see my stated contention that public interest overrides copyright issues.

As you will probably be aware, I published an article last week giving notice to Shell lawyers of my intention to publish this information on the Internet.

I have not received any response and this suggests that Shell has no objection to such publication.

Please let me know if this assumption is wrong.

Shell is, as always, welcome to correct any inaccurate information which is stated as fact in the introduction.

If you want any comment or response by Shell to be added, it will be included on an unedited basis.

If there is no response within the next 48 hours, I will take that as confirmation that Royal Dutch Shell plc has waived copyright in favour of the public interest and our right to criticise Shell using the Internet, as stated by your company in its submission to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in 2005. This was in regard to the proceedings by Shell in respect of the top level domain name and two other Shell related domain names.

Internet publication in controversial circumstances may promote renewed interest in “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” and generate sales.

If you need more time to consider the matter, that is not a problem. Just kindly let me know within the 48 hour period that you will be responding after due consideration.

Best Regards
John Donovan


From: [email protected]
Date: 3 March 2011 09:02:21 GMT
To: [email protected]

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your message. Except for this message the company does not wish to respond to you other than to convey that it strongly disagrees with your views and allegations, objects to your actions and reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyrights.

On an exceptional basis we tested your views about history with the relevant historians. They convincingly refute with evidence what you claim in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.

Best Regards,
Michiel Brandjes
Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate
Royal Dutch Shell plc

Registered office: Shell Centre London SE1 7NA UK
Place of registration and number: England 4366849
Correspondence address: PO Box 162, 2501 AN  The Hague,
The Netherlands


From: John Donovan <[email protected]>
Date: 3 March 2011 13:18:33 GMT
To: [email protected]

Dear Mr Brandjes

Thank you for your response.

For the record, we are not in contradiction with the stated facts based on information/evidence in Shell archives, but rather with the surprising opinions and conclusions aired by your paid historians in relation to that evidence.

Their defence of the numerous allegations of Shell/Deterding funding of Hitler and the Nazi Party was founded on the claim that all attempts by Deterding to meet with Hitler were rebuffed, with the conclusion being that Deterding could not have been held in high esteem by Hitler. I can only surmise that the historians were unaware that in fact Deterding had a summit meeting with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Only an honoured personal guest would be rewarded with a private four day meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat. In contrast, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s face-to-face meeting in September 1938 with Hitler at Berchtesgaden in an attempt to avoid war, lasted for just three hours. The absence of any reference to the Deterding/Hitler meeting in my view undermines the credibility of the relevant paid historians and their ill informed opinions on this historically important matter.

Further evidence of the high regard the Nazis had for Deterding was apparent at his Nazi funeral, which included a glowing personal tribute from Hitler in a wreath sent by Göring: ‘In the name and on the instructions of the Fuhrer, I greet thee, Heinrich Deterding, the great friend of the Germans.‘

I am sure that you will understand that having been bombarded with various threats by Shell and its lawyers for getting on to 20 years, such threats have lost their impact.  Please also bear in mind the fact that we are in possession of a Shell internal communication indicating that Shell decided long ago that it would never take legal action against us. There was a fear expressed in one such communication about “internal laundry”. If you categorically state that Shell will take legal action if we proceed with our planned publication, then we would be more impressed and act accordingly.

As to the blanket condemnation of “our views about history”, I note that not a single example of any inaccurately stated fact has been provided.

Best Regards
John Donovan


A History of Royal Dutch Shell: Pages from Volume 1

A History of Royal Dutch Shell: Pages from Volume 2


Sex and Drugs ScandalU.S. Department of The Interior: Office of Inspector General: Investigative Report of Gregory W. Smith (Redacted) 7 August 2008 Pages 1 to 22 (By accepting the Shell gratuities in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, and by accepting the GWEC .
gratuities in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, Smith violated federal ethics regulations that prohibited accepting
items valued in excess of either $20 per occasion or $50 in total from one source in a given year. )U.S. Department of The Interior: Office of Inspector General: Investigative Report of MMS Oil Marketing Group – Lakewood (Redacted) 19 August 2008 Pages 1 to 31Denver Post: Sex, drugs alleged in oil deals: 10 September 2008 (Many of the alleged misdeeds occurred when Gale Norton was secretary of the interior. Now a general counsel with Shell in Denver, Norton declined to comment, even when asked to address the portion of the reports dealing with the department she headed.)

The Denver Post: Interior Dept, scandal: Sex, Drugs alleged in oil deals: 10 September 2008

CNN: Sex, drugs, gifts uncovered in government oil probe: 10 September 2008

The New York Times: Sex, Drug Use and Graft Cited in Interior Department: 10 Sept 2008

Reuters: US gov’t workers in oil industry sex, drug scandal: 10 September 2008 Sex, Drugs and Oil: 10 September 2008

Wall Street Journal: Federal Oil Officials Accused In Sex and Drugs Scandal: 11 September 2008 (The report named four companies — Chevron Corp., a U.S. unit of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Gary-Williams Energy Corp. and Hess Corp. — as gift givers.)

BBC News: US oil agency rapped over conduct: 11 Sept 2008

Reuters: US Interior Secy ‘outraged’ by oil-sex scandal: 11 September 2008

USAToday: Oil brokers sex scandal may affect drilling debate: 11 September 2008

CBS News: Sex Scandal Taints Oil Drilling Debate: 11 September 2008

Daily Telegraph: US government staff ‘had sex and drugs with energy firm employees’: 12 Sept 2008

Baltimore Sun: Viewpoint: Sex, drugs and natural gas royalties: 17 September 2008

Reuters: US House hearing looks into gov’t oil-sex scandal: 18 September 2008

The Wall Street Journal: Lawmakers Assail Interior Over Scandal: 19 September 2008

Investigative Report of MMS Oil Marketing Group -Lakewood (Redacted) for U.S. Department of the Interior: Office of the Inspector General: 19 August 2008

Investigative Report of Gregory W. Smith (Redacted) for U.S. Department of the Interior: Office of the Inspector General: 19 August 2008

CNN: Whistleblower: Oil watchdog agency ‘cult of corruption’: 14 October 2008

New York Times: Eight Years of Madoffs: 10 January 2009

Shell in U.S. Gov. Sex, Drugs and Corruption Scandal: 24 January 2009 (John Donovan article)


Corrib Gas ProjectIrish Times: Mayo family complains over Shell surveillance: 14 July 2008EXTRACTSA NORTH Mayo family has made a formal complaint to the Garda about constant surveillance of their movements by security staff attached to the Corrib gas project.

Colm Henry, resident of Glengad, says that he and his grandchildren have been filmed by security staff with video cameras every time they walk across family land to a local beach.

Shell EP Ireland has confirmed that surveillance is taking place in Glengad, landfall for the Corrib gas pipeline, but has denied that any film of the children exists.

Shell EP Ireland says the security personnel do not turn on their cameras until an incident has happened, or they believe an incident is “going to take place”.

The company’s external affairs manager, John Egan, said at the weekend the surveillance was needed because of “criminal activity” close to the point where the gas will come ashore. He said that since April there had been six serious incidents involving the burning of nets which had been erected by the company on a cliff to prevent sand-martins nesting there during construction work.

The MayoNews: Family ‘tormented’ by surveillance: 15 July 2008

Irish Times: Corrib security company’s alleged surveillance ‘a civil matter’: 17 July 2008

The Mayo News: Priest’s Shell claims: 22 July 2008

A PARISH PRIEST in north Mayo claims he has been monitored by Shell’s extensive security arrangements at a location where work on the controversial project is ongoing.

Irish Times: RNLI denies Shell donation will compromise service: 4 February 2009


Shell involvement in uranium price fixing cartelNew York Times: DUTCH ANNOUNCE URANIUM PROCESS: 1 March 1968 (Article said Royal Dutch Shell had refused to comment on reports that Shell, Philips Electronics and the Werkspoor Company of Amsterdam were all in discussions with the Dutch Government on a prototype ultra-centrifuge based nuclear reactor. According to the article: “Dutch political sources said the reason for the secrecy was the extreme sensitivity of the nuclear-proliferation issue. They said the centrifuge process presented the possibility that even small nations could manufacture weapons in factories so small than planes or satellites could not distinguish them from normal industrial plants.”)New York Times: Shell Group Joins Gulf in Nuclear Unit: 5 June 1973 (Article reported on a joint venture between Gulf Oil Corporation and companies of the Royal Dutch Shell Group designed to exploit advanced nuclear reactor technology.New York Times: GULF OIL TO DIVEST A LIGHT-WATER UNIT: 4 December 1973 (Article reported that after consultation with its partner in the nuclear business, Scallop Nuclear, Inc., a Royal Dutch-Shell Group company, Gulf planned to divest its lightwater reactor fuel fabrication operations of a wholly owned subsidiary company. Gulf said the action would permit the partnership to concentrate on the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor and the reprocessing of light-water reactor fuel.)

New York Times: Gulf Oil’s Directors Approve Record 1974 Capital Budget: 18 December 1973 (Extract: “Gulf and Shell Nuclear, Ltd., a company of the Royal Dutch Shell Group, said it had completed arrangements to establish two joint ventures in the nuclear power industry. The ventures will be the General Atomic Company, for activities in the United States, and General Atomic International, for activities outside the United States.”

New York Times: Shell Loses $290-Million In Joint Nuclear Venture: 19 April 1975 (Extract: “General Atomic is mainly engaged in the design, development, manufacture and marketing of the high temperature gas-cooled reactor and its associated fuel.”

New York Times: VENTURE IS HALTED BY GULF AND SHELL: 25 October 1975 (Reported that General Atomic “was quitting production of high-temperature nuclear gas reactors.”

New York Times: Four Big Electric Utilities Have Joined Dispute Over Future Uranium Supply: 2 March 1976 (reported on litigation in state and federal Court in New Mexico involving charges of alleged fraud and misconduct on the part of Gulf Oil “and the General Atomic Company, a joint venture owned by the Gulf Oil Corporation and the Scallop nuclear unit of the Royal Dutch Shell Group.”)

New York Times: Amid Confusion, A Primer On Nuclear Energy Policy: 9 April 1977 (reported on Carter Administrations nuclear energy plans. Article discussed Shell’s expected withdrawal from a plant at Barnwell, S.C. designed to reprocess used fuel from nuclear reactors and turn by-product uranium into a solid. Article posed the question “Is most of the world’s plutonium created in power plants?” The answer being that most of it was being produced in reactors such as Windscale in Britain, specially designed to turn out plutonium for weapons.

New York Times: TOO HOT TO HANDLE: 10 April 1977 (Article covered contamination, technical and other issues associated with the sensitive and controversial subject of recycling nuclear fuel. The article mentioned that the $250 million plant built at Barnwell S.C. by Allied General Electric Nuclear Services, in which General Atomic was a joint owner, had not been granted a license to operate and faced considerable opposition.)

New York Times: Suit by Reserve Oil Charges Violations: 23 September 1977 (Reported legal proceedings had been instituted against General Atomic and its owners, Gulf Oil Corporation and “Scallop Nuclear Inc., part of the Royal/Dutch Shell Group.” The complex lawsuit involving various companies related to alleged price fixing of uranium as part of a secret cartel. The article stated that General Atomic was at one time marketing an advanced form of nuclear reactor, one of which was already on line in Colorado.)

Time Magazine: The Uranium Cartel’s Fallout: 21 November 1977 (reported on the alleged cartel price fixing of uranium case being heard by Judge Edwin Felter. EXTRACT: By a quirk of jurisdiction, Felter is presiding over one of the largest and most complex corporate lawsuits ever filed in an American court-a $2 billion-plus action by a New Mexico uranium mining company, United Nuclear Corp., against General Atomic Co., a 50%-owned subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corp., for fraud, coercion and breaches of the nation’s antitrust laws. Royal Dutch Shell owned the other 50% of General Atomic.)

New York Times: Key Ruling Expected Soon In Uranium Antitrust Suit: 2 January 1978 (reported: “Judge Felter is trying a $2.27 billion damage suit against the General Atomic Corporation of San Diego by the United Nuclear Corporation, a uranium mining company with large holdings in Mexico. Gulf and a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch-Shell Group are equal partners in General Atomic”. The article said that Gulf had conceded that its Canadian subsidiary had been involved in a uranium cartel.)

New York Times: General Atomic Seeking Removal of Judge in Suit Against Gulf Oil: 9 January 1978 (reported that General Atomic had petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court in an attempt to have Judge Felter removed from hearing the cartel case on the grounds that he was prejudiced.)

New York Times: Nuclear Protest in South Carolina Ends in 3rd Day With Arrest of 250: 2 May 1978 (article reporting an anti-nuclear protest at the Barnwell, S.C. nuclear waste reprocessing plant in which Royal Dutch Shell Group was a partner. About 250 protestors were arrested. Extract: “Eventually the venture, operated jointly by Allied Chemical, Gulf Oil, and Royal Dutch Shell Group, was to process waste material from nuclear power plants along the Eastern Seaboard.”

Time Magazine: Gulf Oil’s Painful Surgery: 12 June 1978 (Article about Gulf Oil under the headline Gulf Oil’s Painful Surgery. It said in relation to Shell, “General Atomic, a joint Gulf-Royal Dutch/Shell venture, pulled out of the production of high-temperature nuclear gas reactors after heavy losses.” Article also mentioned the cartel litigation. EXTRACTS: “Gulf is also enmeshed in a web of lawsuits growing out of allegations that it secretly participated in a worldwide cartel to manipulate supplies and raise the price of uranium. Last week the company pleaded no contest in the U.S. Government’s case growing out of the cartel arrangement…”.)

New York Times: The Great Uranium Flap: 9 July 1978 (Further report of the litigation over an alleged cartel. The article stated: “Everyone agrees there was a cartel; whether it did anything illegal is in dispute.” The Royal Dutch Shell Group was named in the article as being an owner of General Atomic. The uranium price fixing was described by one participant in the litigation as “…one of the massive rip-offs of all times…”

New York Times: Gulf Pact Set With Scallop: 19 March 1979 (The first paragraph stated: “The Gulf Oil Corporation said it had reached an agreement with Scallop Nuclear Inc., a unit of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, under which the uranium supply and light water reactor fuel fabrication activities of the General Atomic Company would be operated for the account and benefit of Gulf Oil. Gulf and Scallop jointly own General Atomic.”)

New York Times: United Nuclear Wins Court Round: 3 September 1980 (Extracts: “The New Mexico Supreme Court has upheld a lower court decision voiding any obligation by the United Nuclear Corporation to deliver nearly $1 billion worth of uranium to the General Atomic Company.” “The case – the largest in the history of the state – arose out of agreements in the early 1970’s that called for U.N.C. to deliver 27 million pounds of uranium to General Atomic, which is a joint venture of the Gulf Oil Corporation and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. Arguing that General Atomic was part of an international cartel that was trying to corner the uranium market, U.N.C. sued to have those contracts overturned. In 1978, a New Mexico state court rendered a default judgment against General Atomic on the ground that the company refused to supply certain information during the discovery process.”)

New York Times: Exxon and Gulf End Uranium Suit: 8 May 1981 (Reported the settlement of a uranium contract lawsuit between Exxon Corporation and Gulf Oil Corporation relating to the alleged uranium cartel. The price of the uranium was “revised” as part of the settlement. EXTRACTS: “Gulf later assigned the contract to the General Atomic Company, a partnership of Gulf and Scallop Nuclear, which was to receive the uranium.” “Litigation began in early 1978, when Exxon declared the agreement null and void because of Gulf’s alleged participation in an international uranium cartel, Exxon said.”)

New York Times: Gulf to Obtain General Atomic: 22 December 1981 (Reported that Gulf Oil Corporation would become the full owner of the General Atomic Company, a partnership of Gulf and Royal Dutch/Shell Group’s Scallop Nuclear Inc., under a tentative agreement between the partners. The article reported that Gulf would take over Scallop’s high temperature, gas-cooled reactor program, its fusion program and the special products division.)

Royal Dutch Shell Nuclear Subterfuge 2 January 2009


STANDARD OIL DECLARES WAR ON ROYAL DUTCH SHELLNew York Times: N.Y. STANDARD OIL DECLARES WAR UPON DUTCH SHELL GROUP:16 January 1928 (The military tone continued in the sub-headlines: “FIGHT TO FINISH LOOMS”; “Conflict already on in India and Is Expected to spread to Other World Markets”; The opening paragraph of the New York Times article said: “The Standard Oil Company of New York broke a long silence in the controversy over the purchase of Russian oil products by issuing yesterday what amounts to an open declaration of war against the powerful Royal Dutch-Shell group of Europe.”: NY SO accused Royal Dutch-Shell Group of seeking a monopoly of Russia’s oil products and engaging in price-cutting tactics in India. The article said that Sir Henri Deterding, Managing Director of Royal Dutch Shell, had accused NY SO of purchasing “stolen oil” and had announced his intentions “of invading the markets which have been more or less controlled by Standard of New York”.)New York Times: ROYAL DUTCH READY TO BATTLE STANDARD:18 January 1928 (Extract: “In language as emphatic as that in which the Standard of New York set forth its position in the Russian oil controversy, the Royal Dutch announced its intention to continue the competitive struggle that has started in the oil markets of India and which threatens to spread elsewhere.” The statement repeated the allegation made by Sir Henri Deterding that NY SO was “trafficking in stolen goods”. The NY Times article included an Associated Press report that the price-cutting war between SO NY and Royal Dutch-Shell “will continue without quarter…”New York Times: MOVE FOR OIL PEACE GAINS IMPETUS HERE: 7 February 1928 (Sub-headline: “Leaders in the Industry Unite to Adjust Row Between N.Y. Standard and Dutch Shell.”

New York Times: STANDARD ENDS WAR WITH SHELL OIL: 3 July 1928 (reports SO NY and Royal Dutch Shell had agreed to bury their differences in relation to Russian oil products.)

New York Times: SOVIET REPARATION FOR OIL FORECAST: 8 July 1928 (Sub-headline: “Wall Street Understands Standard of New York and Royal Dutch Shell Have Agreement.”: Article quoted the remarks made by Viscount Bearsted, Managing Director of the Shell Transport and Trading Company at the annual general meeting in London in which he acknowledged that the “Russian question” had “given rise to many heated arguments which led to further misunderstandings.)

New York Times: OIL INTERESTS PLAN WORLD CONFERENCE: 14 July 1928 (Reports plan by American interests for an international oil conference to “prevent further overproduction”. Representatives from Royal Dutch and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company – owned by the British government and later to become BP – were invited to attend the setting up of an oil cartel similar to OPEC. The publicly stated objective was an international accord on oil conservation. The end of the war between SO NY and Royal Dutch-Shell removed a block to the cartel plan.)

New York Times: TEAGLE OFF TO DEAL WITH SOVIET ON OIL: 2 August 1928 (The war between SO NY and Royal Dutch Shell was over without either protagonist emerging as a clear winner. The conflict had ended in a draw.)


Groundwater MTBE contamination settlementsWall Street Journal: Oil Firms Settle Claims In MTBE Leak Cases: 8 May 2008About a dozen of the nation’s largest oil companies agreed to pay $423 million in cash to settle litigation with 153 public water providers in 17 states that sued over groundwater contaminated by the gasoline additive MTBE.The companies also agreed to pay cleanup costs that arise in the next 30 years. Terms of the deal were submitted for court approval Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.

The companies in the settlement include BP America Inc., a unit of BP PLC; Chevron Corp.; ConocoPhillips; Shell Oil Co., an arm of Royal Dutch Shell PLC; Marathon Oil Corp.; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; Sunoco Inc.; and Valero Energy Corp.

Bloomberg: Chevron, 11 Oil Firms Pay $423 Million in MTBE Suits: 8 May 2008

Chevron Corp., BP Plc and about 10 other oil companies tentatively agreed to pay $423 million to settle lawsuits in 17 states over contamination claims involving the gasoline additive MTBE, once used to reduce air pollution.

Estimates of the cost to treat MTBE contaminated water in the U.S. have reached $30 billion. Wells and aquifers were poisoned when the burned additive, methyl tertiary butyl ether, returned to the ground in rainwater. The plaintiffs said the firms hid data showing MTBE causes “massive” contamination.

The settling companies include units of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s biggest oil company, ConocoPhillips, the second- largest U.S. refiner, Marathon Oil Corp., the fourth-largest U.S. oil company, Valero Energy Corp. and Sunoco Inc. Chevron is the second-largest U.S. oil company. BP is Europe’s second-largest oil company.

New York Times: Oil Giants to Settle Water Suit: 8 May 2008


The defendants that agreed to the settlement include BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Valero Energy, Citgo and Sunoco.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs, which include 153 public water systems in New York, California and 15 other states, claimed that the additive, a chemical called methyl tertiary butyl ether, or M.T.B.E., was a defective product that led to widespread contamination of groundwater. The suit contended that the chemical was used by oil companies, even though they knew of the environmental and health risks that it posed.

Low levels of M.T.B.E. can make drinking water supplies unpalatable because of its “offensive taste and odor,” according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency has also found that the compound caused cancer in laboratory rats that were exposed to high doses.

Denver Business Journal: Shell, Army reach $35M Arsenal settlement with state: 29 May 2008

Shell Oil Co. and the federal government have agreed to a $35 million payout to settle the state of Colorado’s quarter-century-old lawsuit over pollution at the Army’s former Rocky Mountain Arsenal on the outskirts of Denver.

An agreement in principal was announced Thursday by Gov. Bill Ritter and state Attorney General John Suthers in a news conference at the state Capitol.

Under the settlement, Shell will provide $21 million in cash and land and the federal government the equivalent of $14 million, including credit for past construction of a water-treatment plant.

“The funding contained in this settlement will provide long-term compensation to the citizens along the South Platte who have been affected by the natural resource damages at the arsenal,” Ritter said at the news conference.

Part of the site was leased in 1952 to Shell, which for three decades made pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals there.

Under the settlement, $10 million from Shell will be administered by the state’s Natural Resource Trustees for restoration projects in the arsenal area.

The Denver Post: Shell, Army OK $35M arsenal-pollution settlement: 29 May 2008

Colorado’s quarter century-long legal tussle over groundwater pollution at Rocky Mountain Arsenal ended today with the announcement of a $35 million settlement.

Shell Oil and the U.S. Army — which produced all manner of nasty chemicals from 1942 until 1982 at the arsenal, northeast of downtown Denver — have agreed to pay the state $35 million in damages for polluting groundwater at the arsenal, state Attorney General John Suthers said today.

San Diego Union-Tribune: Colo. gets $35 million from Army, Shell for arsenal cleanup: 29 May 2008

Shell Oil Co., which made pesticides and other chemicals at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, will provide $21 million in cash and land under an agreement announced Thursday to settle a 25-year-old state lawsuit. The Army and the federal government are providing the rest.

Thousands of birds were affected by pesticides at the site. Some 4,100 acre feet of groundwater was contaminated. Badgers and prairie dogs had to be killed because their high levels of poisoning posed a danger to bald eagles that fed on them, said Vicky Peters, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., praised the settlement agreement, saying his company was proud to be a part of it.


Royal Dutch Shell Reserves FraudRoyal Dutch Shell Reserves Fraud
SHELL CONNECTION WITH THE SAUDI ARABIA / AL YAMAMAH BAE ARMS SCANDALWitness Statement of Mr Gerald James 1 June 2007 (24 page pdf document, so please be patience, it will take a while to download)Gerald James book: IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTComment in House of Commons by Vince Camble MP, former Chief Economist of Shell (Debate on the Al-Yamamah BAE Fraud/Corruption controversy and associated money laundering)

7 Feb 2007: Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD):

“Let me turn to the history of this issue. The al-Yamamah contract originated in the mid-1980s, and the context is often forgotten. It was not achieved primarily as a result of competition and British technological excellence; the context at that time was the very close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States, which both sides wished to perpetuate. However, the problem was that, as President Reagan provided Saudi Arabia with more and more sophisticated equipment, there were objections from Israel. Perfectly understandably, the Israelis were concerned about one of their potential adversaries acquiring sophisticated technology. The situation was not helped, of course, by the tirade of anti-Semitic abuse that often comes from the Saudi authorities. Israel protested, and friends of Israel in the United States Congress blocked the F-15 deal, which was in turn passed on to Britain and Mrs. Thatcher. The Reagan Administration were very anxious to bless this arrangement. They owed the Saudis various favours. They were supporting the Nicaraguan Contras and helping gallant freedom fighters in Afghanistan—such as Osama bin Laden. Reagan was perfectly happy to support this British arrangement, which proved to be one of the largest arms deals in history. It has been worth about £40 billion to date, and could be worth something of the same magnitude again in the future. It is not merely an arms deal, but one of extraordinary complexity that involves two major subsidiary features. One is an offset agreement, which, essentially, is a joint venture set of arrangements under which British companies put in capital and expertise, and their Saudi partners take their cut. There is also an oil element. There was an oil barter arrangement whereby oil was marketed, initially by Shell and BP, and the proceeds were routed through the MOD to BAE Systems.”


This Saudi British Bank document contains a reference to the original “Al Yamamah” agreement involving Saudi Arabia, BAE Systems, the UK Ministry of Defence (the MOD), with Shell and BP fulfilling what has been described as a money laundering role in the “oil-for-arms” deal:

“The Al Yamamah Project was initiated in September 1985. It involves the supply and support of Tornado, Hawk and PC-9 aircraft and specialised naval vessels to Saudi Arabia. The UK Government’s prime contractor for the project is BAE Systems pIc. The related Al Yamamah Economic Offset Programme was launched in 1989.”

The main parties are once again Saudi Arabia, BAE Systems and the MoD. The main “Key” address for “The British Offset Office” stated in the document is the Ministry of Defence in London. Shell is also involved, this time via a subsidiary:

“The foreign partner is Basell, who is the world’s largest PP manufacturer and is itself a 50/50 joint venture between Royal Dutch/Shell Group and BASF. Basell will hold 25% of the equity in the Saudi Arabian venture.”

Related MOD documents

House of Commons Select Committee on International Development: September 2000

21. The allegations continued. In December 1996, Sunday Business suggested that one of the reasons behind the Saudi company Aramco’s replacement of BP and Shell as oil exporters in Al Yamamah was an attempt by the Saudi government to save money on commission payments to the companies, which were estimated at $30 million/£18 million a year. (Sunday Business, 1.12.96)

Declassified UK Government documents relating to Shell role in Al-Yamamah “oil-for-arms” project (all confidential/secret/restricted documents):

26 September 1985

UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) document “SALE OF AIRCRAFT TO SAUDI ARABIA). Includes written confirmation from Minister of Defence Michael Heseltine to “His Royal Highness Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz” of terms for the BAe military planes-for-oil deal:


“Following acceptance by the British Government of payment by means of an oil trading scheme, preliminary discussions have been held with the British Oil Companies, BP and Shell. These two companies are prepared in principle to handle the oil trading scheme subject to the agreement of satisfactory terms and conditions. They will form a Consortium, to be led by BP. “

2 October 1985

UK Department of Trade & Industry Minute headed BRITISH AEROSPACE: SAUDI ARABIAN DEAL


“All that had so far been agreed was that the aircraft ordered by Saudi Arabia might be paid for entirely in oil, up to an amount of $4 billion. The details now had to be worked out. Mr Knapp’s simplistic view was that if the oil price went down, the Saudi Arabians would have to pump up more to pay for the aircraft. British Aerospace would have to play a role with BP as an agent having an interest in the deal. BAe had already been involved by the Ministry of Defence in the discussions on the oil deal.”

MoD Letter 21 October 1985



“Nor have the Saudis told us yet exactly how the deal is to be financed; the only word on that so far is that the Saudi authorities have told us that it will be paid for entirely in oil. We hope in concert with BP, Shell, BAe and the Department of Energy to thrash this out with the Saudi Petroleum Ministry, Petromin, very shortly. We await a summons to Riyadh.”

22 November 1985

From 10 Downing Street (From Charles Powell on behalf of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) to MoD plus MoD Response.


“Our oil negotiators (from Shell and BP) are ready to resume discussions with the Saudi Ministry of Petroleum as soon as the Saudi Government (which effectively means the King and Prince Sultan) have decided on the way ahead. Prince Sultan told Mr Chandler that he hoped to be able to make an initial cash payment in addition to arrangements for a long-term oil lifting arrangement in our favour.”

27 January 1986

MoD letter to Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) headed “SAUDI ARABIA – MILITARY AIRCRAFT FOR OIL”

CONTENT OF LETTER FROM C H HENN, UK MoD Assistant Under Secretary of State Defence Export Services Administration.

“On returning from Saudi Arabia this morning I have seen a copy of your letter of 24 January to Adams.

I ought to put it on record that an agreement was signed yesterday in Riyadh by Yamani and by Shell and BP representatives providing for the lifting of 300,000 barrels//day for an initial period of 3 years. It will then continue year by year unless either party terminates. The 300,000 includes lifting East of Suez. The funds generated will be dedicated to the military aircraft project and Shell/BP stated their intention to carry on lifting so long as the aircraft project requires. There are of necessity review and escape clauses but all concerned are well aware of the need for stable funding and Shell/BP would in practice only terminate in extremis.

I should stress that the existence as well as the terms of this agreement is a matter of some political as well as commercial sensitivity.

I should be glad to expand on the above.”

11 February 1986

Department of Trade & Industry Minute


“The essence of the agreement is that Shell/BP will lift 300,000 bpd (+ or -10%) over three years, recoverable if payment for Tornado not by then completed (calculations were made on a price of $20pb which seems optimistic).”

“The Saudis have emphasised that they wish these arrangement to remain confidential; in particular there should be no mention of barter. Neither HMG nor BAe would take title to the oil.”

ECGD 10 March 1986

Export Credits Guarantee Department letter from P Henley to R E Adams at HM Treasury

EXTRACTS”Subsequently Shell and BP entered into 3 year contracts to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis and there are provisions for extending the period as necessary.”

“However, towrds the end, the Saudis made it clear that they expected all payments to be made from oil lift arrangements and for this purpose Shell and BP entered into contracts with the Saudis to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis.”

18 March 1986

Export Credits Guarantee Department Minute by P Henley headed “£5BN DEFENCE DEAL WITH SAUDI ARABIA”


“Subsequently Shell and BP entered into 3 year contracts to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis and there are provisions for extending the period as necessary.”

25 March 1986

Department of Trade and Industry letter from Minister Paul Channon to Rt Hon Nigel Lawson MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer (copied to the Prime Minister)


“However, towards the end, the Saudis made it clear that they expected all payments to be made from oil lift arrangements and for this purpose Shell and BP entered into contracts with the Saudis to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis.”

2 May 1986

Letter from Peter Walker MP, Secretary of State for Energy, to Rt Hon George Younger MP, Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence


You will remember that, at the time the MOU was signed last September, I expressed great concern about the impact of the deal on the oil market.

I am still concerned to avoid adding to disruption and instability in the oil market. Given the importance that Saudi production levels have assumed, I have doubts about the wisdom of agreeing to any increase in liftings under the oil side of the aircraft deal. Nor would I want pressure to be put on Shell and BP to accept such an increase against their better judgement.

30 July 1986

Letter from MoD Head of Defence Export Services, Colin M Chandler, to HRH Prince Sultan bin Adul Aziz Al Saud, under the heading “PROJECT Al YAMAMAH”


“Currently we have approached the British oil companies who have indicated their agreement to increase liftings, subject to terms from 300,000 to approximately barrels a day until the end of March 1987, and as we have agreed today, it is our mutual aim to maintain this level throughout the life of the project. They have also indicated that they will endeavour, given market conditions prevailing, to take larger quantities.”

“(b) Implementation of Increased Oil Liftings

As we agreed today it is necessary for Your Royal Highness to notify the Ministry of Petroleum so that the necessary negotiations can be commenced with the British oil companies Shell and BP as soon as possible.”

29 August 1986

Letter from P Henley of ECGD to HM Treasury under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA: DEFENCE DEAL (Tornados) (now called the YAMAMAH PROJECT)


“ECGD will also have no liability for any default by Shell/BP under the oil net-back arrangements or for the collapse of such arrangements.”

11 September 1986

Department of Trade and Industry letter from Minister Paul Channon to Rt Hon Nigel Lawson MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer (copied to the Prime Minister)


“In the event of a collapse of the oil arrangements between Shell/BP and Aramco ECGD would only assume liability if within a reasonable period thereafter (say 3 months) the Saudi have failed to institute another method of payment.”

23 October 1986

Letter from P Henley of ECGD to HM Treasury under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA – YAMAMAH PROJECT”)


4. We have already told BIS that we are not prepared to entertain cover against any autonomous default by Shell/BP (or by any subsequent oil-lifters) in honouring the oil-lift agreements or in remitting the proceeds as instructed by the Saudis. In so far as Shell/BP entered into the Oil Agreement at the request of MODUK and BAe, Shell/BP can be said to be acting for the benefit of the latter and, in our view, any cover requirement by BIS in this particular respect should be addressed to them.

25 November 1986

Letter from Department of Energy Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Peter Gregson, to Sir Clive Whitmore, MoD.


3. It is of course not at all clear how the Saudi intend to achieve a price of $18 pb without cutting production. But if they are to make any progress towards a fixed price, they will have to dismantle all their current netback contracts, including those with Shell and BP. The current oil agreement gives Shell and BP some protection against this because it entitles them to a netback deal so long as any other company has one.

9 December 1986

Letter from G T W Jones of HM Treasury to Peter Henley of ECGD under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA: YAMAMAH PROJECT”


“4. You attached to your letter a copy of a Department of Energy letter of 25 November, which we had not previously seen. The Department of Energy is concerned that the Saudis might seek to renegotiate the netback contracts with Shell and BP in the context of the Yamamah project. As you know, the Saudis are reported to be in support of reducing output in order to increase the price of oil. This issue is included on the agenda for this week’s OPEC conference.”

18 December 1986

Letter from Peter Henley ECGD to T J D Downing at Bank of England under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA; YAMAMAH PROJECT”


“First concerning delivery of oil. The Oil Agreement provides for oil to be delivered to Shell/BP fob at an Arabian Gulf VLCC port or fob YANBU, making use of the oil pipe-line, or by means of a Saudi vessel to a Shell/BP facility outside Saudi Arabia.”

“If Shell/BP cannot send its ships into the Gulf because of war or a blockade and if oil cannot be delivered at any other port because of pipeline capacity constraints and if KSA were not able to ship the oil to a Shell/BP facility and then failed to pay by other means, ECGD would be liable.

You also raised the question of the difference in meaning between “delivery” and “offer for delivery”. Whilst it is our intention to cover failure by the Saudis to offer oil for delivery and not failure by Shell/BP to take delivery (other than by reason of the force majeure events described above), we have a practical and legal problem in defining “offer for delivery”. We are overcoming this difficulty by talking only about “delivery” (as defined above) but specifically excluding events that we are not prepared to cover (eg default by Shell/BP).”

6 January 1986




Press articles covering Shell involvement in Al-Yamamah corruption scandal

Extract from MEED Middle East Economic Digest article published 17 May 2002 under the headline: Al-Yamamah weathers the changes. (BAE). (Al-Yamamah project remains at the heart of the UK trade drive in Saudi Arabia)

The largest contract ever awarded to a British company, the Al-Yamamah project remains at the heart of the UK trade drive in Saudi Arabia, generating a substantial portion of Britain’s export earnings from the largest economy in the Arab world. Although past its peak, Al-Yamamah still generates at least [pounds sterling] 100 million of sales a year. Contract payments are made through an oil barter arrangement involving BP and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.

Extract from The Daily Telegraph published 19 August 2006 under the headline: “BAE lands arms deal for a new generation”

The oil-for-arms basis of the first deals only served to add to the mysterious workings of Al-Yamamah. BAE was “paid” in oil produced by Saudi outside its Opec quota and sold in the market by BP and Shell. The switch from oil to cash as the basis for the third deal has been influenced by a Saudi anti-corruption drive and a recognition that the slush funds associated with other Saudi arms contracts have helped finance terrorism. There is also a recognition that Al-Yamamah – which means The Dove – is hardly appropriate for defence contracts. There is nothing “dovish” about destructive weapons.

Extract from The Times article published on 21 February 2007 under the headline: “Al-Yamamah an echo of 1980s sleaze”

“The first two al-Yamamah deals were complicated oil-for-arms arrangements that cost Saudi Arabia a certain number of barrels of oil a day. This oil was transferred to BP and Shell, which in turn paid the value of the oil into an escrow account from which BAE received its money.”

Extract from The Guardian article published on 7 June 2007 under the headline: The al-Yamamah deal “Al-Yamamah is Britain’s biggest ever arms deal.

The agreement – its name means “the dove” in Arabic – has kept BAE afloat for the last 20 years, bringing around £40bn of revenue.” “Al-Yamamah has been controversial for many reasons. Within weeks of the deal being signed in 1985, allegations of corruption surfaced. Those allegations have never gone away; in December 2006 the government terminated the Serious Fraud Office investigation into claims that BAE had paid massive bribes to Saudi royals.”

Extract from Financial Times article published 8 June 2007 under the headline: “Barter fund used to pay commissions to middlemen”

Al-Yamamah is covered by government-to-government contracts between Saudi Arabia and Britain, which the British government and BAE insist are confidential. At its heart was a barter arrangement under which the Saudis delivered oil to BP and Royal Dutch Shell, which sold it and deposited the proceeds in an escrow account at the Bank of England. Payments from this account required signatures from officials of both Saudi and British governments. From this account, BAE was paid in stages as it completed project milestones. It used some proceeds to pay commissions to middlemen who had helped facilitate the transaction.

Executive Intelligence Review: Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City: June 22, 2007


Is it possible to place a cash value on the oil deliveries to BAE Systems? According to sources familiar with the inner workings of al-Yamamah, much of the Saudi oil was sold on the international spot market at market value, through British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. EIR economist John Hoefle has done an in-depth charting of the financial features of the oil transactions, based on BP’s own daily tracking of world oil prices on the open market. Using BP’s average annual cost of a barrel of Saudi crude oil, Hoefle concluded that the total value of the oil sales, based on the value of the dollar at the time of delivery, was $125 billion. In current U.S. dollar terms, that total soars to $160 billion (see accompanying charts).

BAE Systems, a crown jewel in the City of London financial/industrial structure, secured somewhere in the range of $80 billion in net profit from the arrangement—in league with BP and Royal Dutch Shell! Where did that money go, and what kinds of activities were financed with it? The answer to those questions, sources emphasize, holds the key to the power of Anglo-Dutch finance in the world today.

The Saudis have forged a crucial partnership with the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, headquartered in the City of London, and protected by the British Crown. They have, in league with BAE Systems, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and other City giants, established a private, offshore, hidden financial concentration that would have made the British East India Company managers of an earlier heyday of the British Empire, drool with envy.

Extract from Financial Times article published 2 July 2007 under the headline: Al-Yamamah deal: the Saudi foreign policy connection

The arrangement, at least initially, involved a special account controlled by the Saudis, at the Bank of England. This would receive funds from the sale of Saudi oil lifted and sold by BP and Royal Dutch Shell, which took a commission. Press reports in 1996 suggested this exact arrangement changed – but over nearly two decades, tens of billions of dollars were directed through it.

Extracts from The Times article published 11 April 2008 headlined: Margaret Thatcher ‘ordered bugging of prince’

Al-Yamamah was initially an oil-for-arms trade. BAE supplied Tornados to the Saudis and they transferred oil to Shell and BP. These companies would pay for the oil by moving money into an account held by the Bank of England. The Ministry of Defence then paid BAE from there.


Shell to pay $19.5 mln for California violations: Reuters: 6 November 2009

Shell Oil paying millions for tank violations: LA Times: 6 Nov 2009

Calif AG: Wins $19.5 Million Court Judgment Vs Shell Gas Stations: Wall Street Journal:6 Nov 2009

Shell Must Pay for Environmental Violations at California Stations: Convenience Store/Petroleum: CSP DAILY NEWS: 9 Nov 2009

Shell’s promise of a bright future turns out to be another false dawn: 17 December 2009

A Carson neighborhood’s future is on hold: Contra Costa Times: 21 Dec 2009 read more



Ad (a) must not appear again in its current form. Ad (b) must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Shell to ensure that they held adequate substantiation for their advertising claims in future.

Shell UK Ltd

Shell Centre


19 October 2011


Radio, Direct mail



Number of complaints:


Complaint Ref:


A direct mailing and a radio ad for fuel:

a. The direct mailing, sent in early March 2011, was headed “Our scientists have developed a regular fuel to help you save”. Further text stated “The scientists at Shell are committed to creating fuels that improve your fuel economy. Their latest fuels – Shell FuelSave Unleaded and Diesel – are designed to help you save fuel and money. These advanced fuels each have a special formula enriched with a Shell Efficiency Improver combined with a special detergent package – designed to improve your fuel economy from the very first fill. And of course you’ll collect one point for every litre you buy”. Next to the text was an image of a man dressed in a lab coat holding a full 1 litre measuring glass, with text on it that stated “SAVE UP TO 1 LITRE PER TANK* AT NO EXTRA COST”. read more

Shell ads banned over fuel claims

19 October 2011

Shell has been criticised for exaggerating a promotion for cost-cutting fuels.

The company has been banned from using two of its adverts which promote a money-saving fuel because they have been ruled to be misleading.

A direct mailing advert, sent in March, said Shell scientists had developed a regular fuel to help consumers save money.

It said: “Their latest fuels – Shell FuelSave Unleaded and Diesel – are designed to help you save fuel and money. These advanced fuels each have a special formula enriched with Shell Efficiency Improver combined with a special detergent package – designed to improve your fuel economy from the very first fill.” read more

Court adjourns case against Shell

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Thursday adjourned till February 3 further hearing in the suit filed by a Lagos-based arms dealer, Gabriel Akinluyi, against Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC).

Mr Akinluyi had in 1994 sued SPDC over an alleged breach of contract on arms deal. The plaintiff, who also joined XM Federal Ltd and one Mr V. Oteri in the suit, wants the defendants to pay him the sum of $2 million (about N300 million) for the services he rendered.

He also sought a declaration that by the letters dated April 4, 1994, from Shell to its agents, the Inspector General of Police(IGP) letter dated April 24, 1994 from Shell to its agents, should act as two binding and enforceable contracts to him. read more


The Office of Inspector General concluded an investigation based on a complaint that Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) received preferential treatment during the awarding of oil shale Research, Development, and Demonstration (RDD) leases in 2005 and 2006 by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Since former Secretary Gale Norton subsequently secured employment with Shell, we expanded our investigation to consider her involvement...

Shell BP Merger? A perfect fit

By John Donovan

Updated 18 July 2010

Why all the talk of an American predator devouring a fatally wounded BP?

Royal Dutch Shell and BP have a shared corporate culture that makes for a perfect fit.

For many decades Shell and BP traded as a single entity in the UK under the name of Shell-Mex & BP Limited.

Both have made extravagant claims in multimillion dollar global greenwash advertising campaigns about their lofty business ethics and undying commitment to the environment.

Both companies in reality have flouted environmental laws and regulations and as a consequence, inflicted terrible pollution that has ruined the lives of ordinary people e.g. Shell’s notorious track record in Nigeria and BP’s in the USA.
read more

Has Shell’s advertising budget been wisely spent?


Shell’s latest corporate advertisement followed by candid commentary/analysis by Paddy Briggs (right)…


Today’s consumers are smarter than ever about energy. Naturally they want it to heat, cool and light their homes, get them to work, and power their mobile phones. But they are also keen to help build an energy system that sustains the lives of future generations. They want their energy to come from cleaner sources. They want to get the most out of every drop. And they want to see positive results now.

At Shell, we’re listening. Consumers’ raised expectations inspire us to come up with ever more innovative products and services. read more

Shell decides to “stick to its knitting”

Posting by former Shell Executive Paddy Briggs on the article “Shell defends continued focus on fossil fuel-paper“: Mar 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 am

Tom Peters seminal book “In Scarce of Excellence” was first published in 1982 and in it there were eight themes for success in business one of was “Stick to the knitting” – i.e. stay with the business that you know. It has taken Shell quite a while to acknowledge Tom Peters’ truism – ironically as there is no major corporation which has made more of a mess of diversification than Shell. Along the way there have been failed ventures in Coal, Mining, Nuclear Power, Electricity Generation, Forestry, Wind Power, Solar, Convenience Stores, Home insulation… read more

Shell: We are serious about meeting climate challenges mid-December, the Gazette reported that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) recently released data indicating the Martinez Shell petroleum refinery was the state’s second worst polluter of greenhouse gases — particularly carbon dioxide — in 2008. According to the agency, a subdivision of California Environmental Protection Agency, last year the facility discharged 4.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and other gases into the atmosphere, contributing to the entrapment of solar radiation and warming of the planet’s surface.

Shell’s promise of a bright future turns out to be yet another false dawn home

Fred Pearce's Greenwash

Fred Pearce, Thursday 17 December 2009 07.00 GMT

Shell drip-feeds its environmental ‘credentials’ to the public. Photograph: James Boardman

Editors must love Shell. Almost whatever I have read about climate change and the UN talks in Copenhagen in recent weeks, it has been flanked by the familiar Shell logo somewhere in the background.

From geeky titles like New Scientist to politico mags such as Prospect and New Statesman; and newspapers like the Guardian, the world’s second largest corporation has been splashing out – filling screens and newsprint with adverts and underwriting special supplements. Shell also sponsored a major research project by the Economist Intelligence Unit, called Countdown to Copenhagen, launched early this year at a Shell-sponsored “sustainability summit”. read more

The skeletons in Shell’s closet

In June, the company agreed to pay $15.5 million to settle a lawsuit that alleged complicity in murder, torture and other human rights abuses by Nigeria's former military government. In 1995, the Nigerian activist Ken Saro-Wiwawas was hanged by Nigeria's military regime after protesting Shell's environmental practices, including gas flaring and the destruction of mangroves to make way for pipelines.

Greenwash Offenders Shell in US climate change controversy

By John Donovan

The Financial Times reports today that the US oil industry is split on the question of climate change.

The split has been revealed from a leaked memo issued to its members by the American Petroleum Institute, which represents the US oil industry, including core members ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell.

According to the FT article, the memo leaked to Greenpeace outlined a plan to “deploy thousands of workers in so-called “Energy Citizen” rallies protesting against imminent climate change legislation” with members asked tomove aggressively to stage up to 22 public meetings, similar to the recent protests against President Barack Obama’s healthcare plans. read more

Shell not a “hoodlum organisation” says its Company Secretary, Michiel Brandjes

This self-explanatory email correspondence is published simultaneously with the article: "Former Shell Group Auditor says Shell is a hoodlum organisation"

File of outspoken articles about Royal Dutch Shell 2004 – 2009

File of outspoken articles about Royal Dutch Shell published by this website since 2004.

Peter Voser’s message to Shell staff presages a gloomy future for all of Shell’s employees and stakeholders

Posted on May 28th, 2009 by Paddy Briggs

Shell’s CEO designate Peter Voser would have to have been terminally naïve to assume that his extraordinary internal Email to staff would not immediately be placed in the public domain – as indeed it was within minutes of its transmission. Assuming that Voser knew exactly what he is doing let’s analyse what this message means for Shell’s battered stakeholders.

The fact that Voser chose to send out the Email when there is a still a month to go before he takes over as CEO is remarkable – and crassly insensitive to the feelings of the current man in charge Jeroen van der Veer. Van der Veer will no doubt also be aggrieved that the tone of the Email is so fiercely critical of the Shell of today – a Shell that has been moulded over the past six years by his efforts. Outside stakeholders will also want to ask why, if things at Shell are quite so bad as Voser says, van der Veer has been remunerated to the extent of around 10million Euros a year, why he is to receive a pension of well over one million Euros a year and why his contract with Shell was extended well beyond the normal Shell retirement age of 60. read more

Shell faces legal fight over alleged human rights abuse and pollution

Jeroen van der Veer's tenure as chief executive ends amid outcry over bonuses, environmental record and human rights abuses

Shell Blog Posting: The world’s biggest polluters are China, India and America, not Shell


MUSAINT: Greenpeace & Friends of the Earth describe Shell “as the most polluting oil company”. Does this : (i) take into account that Shell is a larger worldwide operator than most? and (ii) take account that Shell has partners in most ventures? (i.e. is their partners % deducted from Shell’s numbers?). I bet as usual (aka Brent Spar) that Greenpeace have “expanded” their numbers to try and make a point! At the end of the day the biggest polluters by a long long way are China, India and America. What about attacking their policies rather than the usual onslaught at oil companies? – the usual reason perhaps? …… they are easier to get at (e.g. Shell Nigeria vs Nigerian Government). The likes of a left wing dross newspaper such as the Guardian really does write such nonsense. It’s a shame that again you have “expanded” your title to infer that the summit was hijacked by Shell. The Guardian states “polluters” in their title – I think you have again added more spice!! As I’ve said before our recent summers have been cold, wet and generally awful – a little warming up of the weather will be a nice thing. Hope this stirs up some response on this blog which has been rather quiet of late!!! read more

Shell’s institutionalised delusion

Comment by former Shell Exec Paddy Briggs on: “Climate change summit hijacked by world’s biggest polluter Shell, critics claim”

Paddy Briggs

on May 25th, 2009 at 9:36 am 

Another example of Shell’s institutionalised delusion that they are a player in the debate on the global energy future. At its most venal this was characterised by the dysfunctional and disingenuous corporate advertising of recent times that tried to suggest that Shell really cared about the energy mix and supported the development of renewable sources. Shell’s inevitable and predictable recent withdrawal from her Renewables business showed what a farce this was. read more

Shell Is Second In The Climate Greenwash Awards 2009


Monday, 25 May 2009

Shell was announced “second” to a Swedish energy giant – Vattenfall as the winner of the Climate Greenwash Award 2009 (dissemination of misleading information to conceal its abuse of the environment in order to present a positive public image) at a ceremony in Copenhagen on Saturday May 23, on the eve of the World Business Summit on Climate Change. 

Some of the “key determinants for success’ of the oil giant is its continued adverts to mislead the public about what it is doing to tackle climate change and its activities in the Niger Delta that have devastated the local environment.  read more

Climate change summit hijacked by world’s biggest polluter Shell, critics claim home

Climate change summit hijacked by biggest polluters, critics claim

• Shell could help shape post-Kyoto agenda

• Majority of attending firms want ‘business as usual’

Terry Macalister,,  Monday 25 May 2009

A vital meeting in Copenhagen this weekend that will help shape the agenda for the most important climate change talks since the Kyoto protocol has been hijacked by some of the biggest polluters in the world, critics claimed today.

Among those attending the World Business Summit on Climate Change is Shell, which has just been named by environmentalists on the basis of new research as “the most carbon-intensive oil company in the world”. read more

Grease Monkeys: Exxon’s Slick Contribution to Renewable Energy

Big oil companies like Shell and BP may be in full retreat from renewable energy. That’s not stopping them from touting green credentials wherever they can.

GREENWASH – The drama and the reality

Posted on April 2nd, 2009

by Paddy Briggs 

“He’s a PR man. For an oil company. That’s bottom of the list!

 Below TV evangelist. Just above child molester.”

Michael in “Greenwash” by David Lewis

I have just been scanning through the last seven editions of “The Economist” newspaper – and as always it’s a very good read. And in these troubled times it is arguably an essential source to inform about what really might be going on in the world. The pointers to today’s realities come from The Economist’s excellent but anonymous correspondents, the letters and especially for the advertisements – or at the moment the lack of them.  The good news is that the “Greenwash” ads, which featured strongly in the newspaper until recently, have vanished! A year or so ago, and for some years before that, upmarket print media was full of mostly disingenuous corporate advertising from oil and energy companies with a common theme. In short Shell, BP, Total, Chevron and even ExxonMobil wanted to convince their “special publics” (as Shell called us) that they were public-spirited companies. In particular the message was that they had a unique contribution to make to the resolution of the world’s energy problems – global warming and all that. A common message was that the “proof” that Shell and the rest really cared was their alleged commitment to not just their traditional oil and gas businesses but also to a whole raft of non-traditional energy initiatives such as renewable forests, solar, wind, hydrogen and the like.  It wasn’t just former oil company insiders like me who were sceptical of these claims – all the NGOs and most of the other proponents of Renewables saw through the chimera and christened it “Greenwash”. read more

Green gauge

Power failure: Despite a series of adverts proclaiming an interest in clean power, Shell has announced it doesn't plan to make any further investments in wind or solar energy

Shell and the shocking bonfire of its vanities

Does this story mean that you can’t believe a thing that Shell tells us in its communications? Sadly I think that it does and that it will be a long time, if ever, before you can believe a word that they say again.


Selections of links to news articles about Royal Dutch Shell GREENWASH activity involving deliberate deception, treating the public as mugs.

Greenwash: Shell betrays ‘new energy future’ promises

Fred Pearce's Greenwash

The energy company has sold out on its renewable investments, claiming they are ‘not economic’

  • Fred Pearce
    •, Thursday 26 March 2009 10.29 GMT

    Shell has pulled back from its renewable investments, claiming they are ‘not economic’ Photograph: James Boardman/Public Domain

    Shell, I have to report, is the new Exxon. The company that back in December was filling this and other newspapers with double-page adverts promoting its conversion to a “new energy future” of wind farms, hydrogen fuels, fuel made from marine algae and much else, has pulled the plug. read more

Clampdown on greenwash

David Norman, director of campaigns at WWF UK, whose complaint against an advertisement by Royal Dutch Shell last year was upheld by the ASA, gave the change in rules a cautious welcome.

BP, Shell Renewable Invest Cuts Make Business Sense

LONDON (Dow Jones)--BP PLC (BP) and Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) have angered environmental groups by quietly cutting back their investment in renewable energy, but experts said the move reflects a business reality that is hard to contest.

Shoppers need clear labels to put a stop to ‘greenwash’

A complaint against Shell, which ran a newspaper advert depicting its refinery chimneys emitting flowers, was upheld by the advertising watchdog. Friends of the Earth complained about the advert, which ran with the slogan: "Don't throw anything anyway. There is no away."

Shell goes to paradise in search of cheap biofuel

Environmentalists fear that Shell’s efforts to go green could end up like Captain Cook on the shores of Kona – left to die in the surf.

Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels

Until recently, Shell's investment in wind power featured prominently in its corporate advertisements. FoE said the company's move heralded a slightly more honest approach. "Shell is at least being a bit more honest about the fact they are a fossil fuel company. It has seen the limitations of the greenwash it was putting out a few years ago."

Shell’s subtle switch from renewables to the murky world of ‘alternative’ energy homeGeorge Monbiot blog

Shell’s spending on renewables – except biofuel – appears to have fallen from $200m a year to zero over the past nine years

The Royal Dutch Shell headquarters in The Hague

Question time … the Royal Dutch Shell headquarters in The Hague. Robin Utrecht/EPA

So at last we have an explanation. During my video interview with Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Shell, I asked the same question 15 times: “What is the value of your annual investments in renewable energy?”

After several attempts to change the subject, he admitted that he knew the figure, then flatly refused to reveal it. Nor could he give me a convincing explanation of why he wouldn’t tell me, claiming only that “those figures are misused and people say it is too small” and it “is not the right message to give to the people”. read more

Toxic ethical ranking of Royal Dutch Shell

Out of 541 multinationals surveyed, Royal Dutch Shell has an overall ranking of 510, alongside the likes of the tobacco companies and Halliburton.

Shell Sued Over Texas Refinery Emissions

Environmental activists filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of citizens against Shell,reports the Houston Chronicle. Environment Texas Citizen Lobby and the Sierra Club claim Shell and many of its subsidiaries have released millions of pounds of excess toxic air pollutants along the Houston Ship Channel over the past five years

Shell Guide to LIFE IN THE CORN

A Shell advert published in Punch magazine on 2 April 1958 (Click on image to enlarge) Painting by John Leigh Pemberton


In the growing and ripening stages corn and hay are a sanctuary for wild life which man does not invade. Here is cover and food for RABBITS (1) which have survived myxomatosis, and for two migrant birds, CONCRAKE (2) and QUAIL (hen 3, cock 4), which are scarce nowadays though they have always been less seen than heard (the Corncrake precisely “crakes”, the Quail says “wet-my-lips “). The LONG-TAILED FIELD MOUSE (5) and the COMMON SHREW (6) live on the margins and in the crop. HARVEST MICE (7), using their tails as they climb about the wheat, are a decreasing species. Modern cleaning of seeds and selective weedkillers have also reduced the flowers. CORNCOCKLE (8) and CORNFLOWER (9) are now much rarer (though common across the Channel in Normandy). BINDWEED (10) isn’t easily repressed, nor is the odd little SHEPHERD’S NEEDLE (11), with needle-shaped fruits. POPPIES (12) still blaze on light soils, and WHITE CAMPION (13) remains common. It was a belief that picking these last two would bring on thunderstorms: in a way, they were protectors of the crop. read more

%d bloggers like this: