- Sustainable Development
have received a copy of your response to Mr. Phillip Coe.
are aware of the allegations that Mr John Dyer has made about Shell and its
research activities at Thornton in Cheshire. Mr Dyer has engaged Shell on this
matter since 1994 when he first made erroneous claims that Shell had covertly
conducted "atomic" research at the Thornton site in the 1950s and 60s.
He alleged that following the research programme, contaminated buildings
and equipment were demolished in an unsatisfactory fashion. In 1994 Mr Dyer took
his claims to ITV's "The Big Story".’
appear not to have read Shell’s ‘nuclear dumping’ files.
In 1993 contact was made with Carlton Television’s ‘Big Story’, who
in turn contacted Shell. The Royal
Dutch/Shell Group has been aware, of the fact that I was making/investigating
the allegations, since at least 1992. I
have personally been researching this matter since 1988, not 1994.
producers spent many weeks investigating the claims with a view to making a
programme about the issue. Shell investigated all the allegations put to it by
the rogramme's producers and supplied comprehensive answers - and the
producers decided not to proceed with a programme.’
completed the interviews of the personnel who had carried out Shell’s secret
reactor decommissioning (along with former Shell employees and others), the
television programme was virtually complete. On the 7 February 1994, a matter of
days before the proposed transmission date (10 February), Shell produced its Narrative. The said Narrative
was/is a tissue of lies from start to finish, knowingly fabricated precisely
because Shell was/is aware of its nuclear dumping crimes. Shell’s said Narrative and its other actions
‘killed’ the television programme. I
note you fail to mention the former cabinet secretary (Lord) Robert
Armstrong’s role in this matter. Perhaps,
you could now write and confirm, his role?
Dutch/Shell’s continuing ability to lie is well illustrated by ‘Shell
investigated all the allegations put to it by the programme's producers and
supplied comprehensive answers’ for the ‘comprehensive
answers’ relates solely to Royal Dutch/Shell’s fraudulent sham
Narrative-which, as you must know, Shell’s legal head (Richard Max Wiseman)
and others, have now conceded was a ‘mistake’.
Despite this I now find, that Shell is once again utilising its
fraudulent sham Narrative in support of its continuing policy of covering up its
nuclear dumpings, and other crimes.
‘Your’ ‘Shell investigated all the
allegations…’, directly contradicts Shell’s line as expressed by
Thornton’s Managing Director, Graeme Sweeney at our meeting of the 12 January
(Shell) are weary of undertaking the type of investigation
you (John Dyer) have described’*, Graeme Sweeney continued ‘I
don’t have, to hand, sufficient evidence to convince me, that we should
conduct a large scale investigation you are looking for. That is not to say that
couldn’t be done. You are quite
right that could be done.’
As you can see the ‘Shell
investigated all the allegations’ line, has not unfortunately
reached ‘Thornton’-the very people who according to
Shell’s legal and former media head’s ‘investigated all the allegations’.
Incidentally, Shell’s present (?) Cobalt-60 ‘honest
mistake’ defence/line, as stated by the Group’s legal head (‘authorised to
speak for the entire Group’) and others, is incompatible with the ‘Shell
investigated all the allegations’ line.
Perhaps, you would be good enough to forward a coherent, unified Group
assert that Carlton’s ‘Big Story’ ‘producers decided not to
proceed with a programme’- what producers are these? I can assure you, with absolute certainty, that the
television programme (‘Big Story’) producer has no doubt’s as to the truth
of Shell’s wholesale nuclear dumpings. Consequently,
I would be pleased if you would forward the name of the ‘producer(s)’, whom
you assert ‘decided not to proceed with the programme’,
great deal of time has been devoted to investigating his claims. Indeed, senior
Shell managers have met Mr Dyer and we have engaged with him in a lengthy and
detailed correspondence. Mr Dyer has now threatened to begin legal proceedings
against Shell and has launched a website. We have repeatedly asked Mr Dyer
to provide Shell, or any independent third party with specific evidence to
enable further investigations to take place. Shell has given its assurance
that it would naturally co-operate with any such organisation.’
great deal of time has been devoted to investigating his claims’.
(Shell) are weary of undertaking the type of investigation you (John
Dyer) have described’, Graeme Sweeney continued ‘I don’t have, to hand,
sufficient evidence to convince me, that we should conduct a large scale
investigation you are looking for. That is not to say that couldn’t be done.
You are quite right that could be done.’
Graeme Sweeney- Shell Research Limited /Thornton Research Centre, MD.
senior Shell managers have met Mr Dyer ‘ At the said meting with ‘senior
Shell managers’ I informed how Royal Dutch/Shell could quickly
substantiate Shell's extensive cash payments to the 'criminals' it sought out
and hired to carry out its secret nuclear decommissioning, at Thornton Research
Centre, in 1968. Once this was
verified, it was readily agreed that a six-figure cash sum (to-days
prices), was a most unusual occurrence, to say the least- progress would
quickly follow. As I informed ‘senior
Shell managers’, the bank’s ex-employees will be able confirm
Shell’s said extensive cash payments.
undertakings given by ‘senior Shell managers’ at the meeting
were immediately dishonoured. For,
once Shell had concluded (or feared), that my evidence would substantiate the
nuclear dumping 'allegations', the decision was quickly taken to rule out even
the pretence of an investigation. Hence,
agreements reached at the meeting (that Shell would follow up the information
supplied), hardly had time to dry, when a letter from (Dr) Hugh Dorans was dispatched, requesting to
interview my witnesses.
refusal (at the said meeting) to disclose the names of my witnesses, Shell
believed it had found a (PR) line/excuse to use against me, hence, Hugh Dorans
was instructed to write ‘requesting’ that I disclose, that I had just
informed Shell was 'unacceptable'.
said letter was an outrageous, cynical, calculated, face-saving PR move, for
Shell's representatives had embarrassingly (for Shell), agreed to contact
(‘Shell's’) ex- bank employees (and others) to establish the truth, or
otherwise, of the alleged cash payments. Shell,
following the meeting, aware of the truth, refused to sanction any such course
of action, which could leave the Group in the position of being unable to
continue its policy of denying they are aware of the truth of its nuclear
Following my refusal, to take part in Dorans/Shell's 'we need to
know/interview your witnesses' charade, Shell’s most senior directors, in the
form of its Legal Head, the Chairman of Shell Transport & Trading-Mark Moody-Stuart,
and Shell Thornton's MD Graeme Sweeney, all wrote, demanding that I make 'my'
witnesses available to Shell. Having
received four letters, one from the Groups actual Head, its Legal Head and one
from Thornton's MD plus (Dr) Hugh Dorans, I decided to 'test' the sincerity of
the demands, by offering the Shell Group the opportunity to interview them.
Shell’s ‘Top Brass’ having
participated in a-‘we must interview your witnesses’ charade, then refuse to
sanction the very ‘interviews’, they had demanded!
The lie (that) ‘We
have repeatedly asked Mr Dyer to provide Shell, or any independent third party
with specific evidence to enable further investigations to take place’’ is exposed
by the following (from my letter of the 9 June 2000 -to Shell’s legal head):
“To this point we have been unable to find
anything to collaborate your allegations…..”
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
At our meeting, of the 12 January 1999, I
communicated to Mr Sweeney (Thornton’s MD), how Shell could quickly
authenticate the ‘first element of the story’, -the extensive cash payments.
Once this was verified, I informed the meeting (Shell), we could move
forward. As I informed Mr Sweeney, the bank’s ex-employees will be
able to supply the required corroboration regarding the cash payments.
If you had any trouble locating the bank’s former employees, I shall be
able to assist. Consequently, I
await your call.’
have repeatedly offered (Shell), as per my last letter, to jointly
interview the ‘lads’ and former Shell employees, and others, who would
quickly establish the truth. You
offered to interview former Shell directors, who were aware of the sham nature
of the Narrative, prior to its construction.
remind you that in spite of your (Shell) numerous undertakings, I now find that
not only does Mr Sweeney (Thornton’s MD) refuse to respond to my
letter of 5 May, ‘he asks you’ (Shell) to forward the fact that ‘he will
not be responding’.’
the above offers (and others), had no conditions attached to them. All
were refused. In the case of the
‘ex-bank employees’- no call received.
The offers were rejected because Shell’s strategy is to brazen (out)
its nuclear dumping crimes, and hence the consequences, out.
Consequently, the above offers, and any other offers I make, will be/were
rejected, for once Shell, for example, contacted the said former bank employees
(in order to establish the extensive 'cash' payments), as per Graeme Sweeney’s
(Thornton’s MD) undertaking, Shell would no longer be able to turn a
‘Nelson’s eye’ and pretend that it is unaware of the truth concerning its
Rather than detailing further examples of Shell’s
copious rejections of (it receiving) my evidence-would you please forward a
single occasion (never mind ‘We
have repeatedly asked Mr Dyer to provide… ) when Shell asked me ‘to provide Shell, or any independent third party with specific
evidence to enable further investigations to take place’
Now that is the
challenge, don’t duck it, pretend you don’t understand it, ignore it.
Just for once answer a straight question with a straight answer.
Dyer has now threatened to begin legal proceedings against Shell and has
launched a website’.
letter of the 31 May 200, to Shell’s legal head closed thus:
‘You (Richard Wiseman) will recall that I closed my last letter constructively, by asking you, if my (latest) proposals were unacceptable, to forward any proposals of your own. In response, you issued a curt ultimatum, combined with a second message that you would prefer me to seek personal redress via the courts.’
the record we should state that Shell has never been involved in
"atomic" research at the Thornton site. Between 1953 and 1966 it
did conduct research for the UK Atomic Energy Authority. The research was only
ever concerned with developing hydrocarbon fluids such as lubricants for nuclear
power plants. It involved subjecting lubricants to controlled emissions of
low level Gamma radiation in a small, secure, purpose-built laboratory..
There has never been a nuclear reactor at Thornton. The work was conducted
strictly in accordance with the Radioactive Substances Acts of 1948 and 1960 and
other relevant legislation. The site was properly registered and regularly
inspected and any disposals of any radioactive materials were conducted in
accordance with appropriate regulations. Shell has nothing to hide - it has
never made a secret of this research programme.
Indeed the work was described in the publicly available brochure,
"50 Years of Thornton Research Centre" which was produced in 1990.’
I note that
Shell, has once again chosen to issue its ‘denials’ via Shell International
Limited, hence the ‘denials’ are meaningless, as Shell International Limited
has no standing in this matter. Royal
Dutch/Shell has constantly refused, despite my repeated demands (following the
outline of my evidence) to re-affirm that it stands by the Narrative’s ‘no
reactor’ declarations. Following
your ‘letter’ I again ask Shell to re-affirm its 7 February 1994
Narrative’s declarations that:
(a) Shell Thornton were not involved in "atomic
research" (page 1). Does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group still
stand by this- Yes or NO?
(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear
facility"…. Thornton did not
and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page
2). Does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group still
stand by this- Yes or No?
(c) We do not understand what you mean by
"atomic research for military purposes". We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in
any atomic research (page 2). Does
the Royal Dutch/Shell Group still stand by this-
Yes or No?
Specifically, does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group
deny they and/or Thornton/Stanlow had/housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing
cell at its Thornton Research Centre/Stanlow site in the 1960’s, as set out in
my Statement of Claim? Yes or No?
does the Royal Dutch/Shell Group deny that it
(‘Thornton’) and/or its employees/agents carried out nuclear/military
and other research/work for:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)
United Kingdom military and others
United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC)
United States of America Air Force (USAAF)
United States of America Army
United States of America Navy
Westcott Rocket Propulsion Laboratory.
to your ‘letter’ you will now, self-evidently, have no difficulties in
responding/ answering the above, complete with a Statement of Truth, signed by
yourself, or one of Shell’s Chairmen, or its Legal Head.
The said answers/Statement of Truth should also include, if the
answers/Statement of Truth are forwarded under Shell International Limited’s
‘banner’, the following information:
1. Who, if and when, authorised Shell International
Limited, to speak on behalf of Shell Research Limited and or the Royal
2. At what level was authorisation given?
3. Have you made the owners/directors of Shell Research
Limited (a Royal Dutch Company) aware of the position.
If so when, and at what level?
4. Have the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, granted
you authority to speak on their behalf concerning these matters. If so when, and
at what level was authority given?
5. Can you confirm that The Shell Transport and Trading Company p.l.c. -has granted you authority to speak on this matter? If so when, and at what level?
close your ‘letter’ thus:
will, of course, re-investigate the claims made by Mr Dyer if he is able to
bring forward evidence to justify his allegations’
I am afraid that you fail to understand the logic of Shell’s ‘honest
mistake’ position. Mr
Richard Wiseman (Shell’s legal head) wrote on the 24 May 2000:
assertion that in the past people on our side have been untruthful is completely
couple of days later, Shell’s legal head insisted:
statement contained in paragraph 1 is not just “an official position”, it is
maintained in his letter of 2 October, that Shell Research Limited had:
all of the information (i.e. Shell’s Narrative of the 7 February 1994.) needed
to respond to the assertions you (I) have previously made'
follows that if Shell personnel have not been lying, as per Shell’s repeated
claims, then the Narrative is only incorrect because, as Shell’s legal head,
and others maintain, they had assumed, wrongly, that the ‘building’ that had
been decommissioned in 1968, was the Cobalt-60 labyrinth. It follows that the (rest of) information in your Narrative
must be, and is ‘factual’ i.e. you have records or were informed, presumably
by former directors/employees, as to the contents of your Narrative, otherwise
you would have made-it-up i.e. lied.
back to your ‘evidence (required) to justify allegations’. If Shell’s assertions that its personnel did not lie, are correct,
then your own Narrative of 7 February 1994, provides the ‘evidence’,
Shell require. For at virtually every point the Group’s Narrative vindicates
the ‘witnesses’ accounts of events. For example:
As you can see,
Shell apparently already has the required ‘evidence’. Unless, of course, you now decide to forward further ‘explanation(s)’.
The bogus nature of your required ‘evidence’
line is provided by the following (from my letter of the 9 June 2000, to
Shell’s legal head):
‘Nevertheless, the one thing
we can surely agree on is that this is far too important to allow personnel
feelings to be in any way a significant factor.
Consequently, I am prepared to hand over direct to Shell, a transcript of
my interview with your former ‘Manager’, complete with official, Shell and
other documents conclusively ‘demonstrating’ that Shell Thornton Research
Centre and its employees were conducting the nuclear research programs as per
the Managers account. I have
further good news. I have located
some of the personnel involved. However,
not all reside in the UK, some reside in Europe, others are wider a field.
In return, after inspecting the evidence you will
accept (the evidence) as being such, that you will accept my proposal(s) to have
the remainder of my evidence subjected to the required scrutiny, as I have
set-out. In the event that you
‘find’ my evidence ‘unproven’ you would give an undertaking to jointly
interview, the said identified personnel, so that the facts can be established.
If I may quote you ‘What have you to lose?’
particular piece of conclusive ‘evidence’ was rejected, this
time on the grounds of, wait for it- ‘costs’!
I hardly need to develop this point any further, do I?
have sought always to treat Mr Dyer respectfully’ is
breathtakingly at variance with reality.
strategy was enjoined by forwarding truly repugnant, fabricated, disgusting
lies that I had ‘harassed elderly Shell pensioners’. To this day I find this distressing.
My mail has been intercepted, retained and/or destroyed.
My phone tapped.
I was kept under surveillance!
Having constructed a fraudulent sham Narrative, in 1994, Shell, from
late 1998 onwards, cynically participated in keeping the ‘nuclear-crimes’
correspondence going for virtually two years, on the pretence of its willingness
to investigate matters; I now discover that Shell’s proposed main defence, to
my claim, is that my claim is (legally) time barred!
The Group’s lawyers’ threats to sue and bankrupt me.
One only has to view
the following three closing quotes/pleadings (from my letters, to Shell’s
Legal Head, Richard Wiseman) to expose the nature of the lie that - ’As a responsible organisation committed to
best practice and continuous improvement in all matters of health, safety and
the environmental performance Shell will, of course, re-investigate the claims
made by Mr Dyer if he is able to bring forward evidence to justify his
31 May 2000:
after reading all this, you carry on as previously then I feel I can now do no
more via correspondence. You will
recall that I closed my last letter constructively, by asking you, if my
proposals were unacceptable, to forward any proposals of your own.
In response, you issued a curt ultimatum, combined with a second message
that you would prefer me to seek personal redress via the courts.’
‘In view of the fact that we are now going
around the same circle, we have now come to the point that if you were to turn
down my latest offers, then I believe it is entirely fair for me to
conclude that you have, by design, chosen to close this correspondence.’
turned these, as per all my offers, down, or simply refused to address them)
If you (Shell)
would change policy and become serious about this, then I believe a sensible
solution, regarding the review of my evidence and the other issues, could
quickly be achieved. For the
record, nothing would give me greater delight and satisfaction.
As I have stated I have no desire to ‘harm’ Shell that’s mere
infantile jester politics. Consequently,
the resulting tragedy, if you do not stop it, is Shell’s, and Shell’s
now await your response/answers and Statement of Truth, which should, of course,
include a declaration that you have viewed Shell’s ‘nuclear dumping/Dyer’