Shell's strategy
Home Up Shell's lies Shell's lawyers Money 'slur' Shell's lawyers Nuclear denial 'Evidence'




Despite internal dissent, I (John Dyer) was invited to a formal meeting at Shell's Thornton Research Centre, on Tuesday 12 January 1999, at 2.30 pm.

In attendance 

John Alfred Dyer.

Graeme Sweeney (Dr), MD, Thornton Research Centre.

Ian Lampbet (medical Dr), Occupational Health Unit Stanlow/North West, Head of Medical Services Shell UK.

Hew Dorans (Dr), Shell Research, Thornton. 

At the meeting, I restated Shell's nuclear dumping crimes.  As Shell's official line is to pretend that it is unaware of the 'events' surrounding its decommissioning, I informed how Royal Dutch Shell's directors could quickly substantiate the ‘first element of the story’, -Shell's extensive cash payments to the 'criminals' it hired to carry out its nuclear decommissioning at Shell's Thornton Research Centre, in 1968.  Once this was verified (it was readily agreed that a six-figure cash sum (to-days prices), indicted a most unusual occurrence, to say the least,  Progress, Shell were informed, would quickly follow.  As I (John Dyer) informed the meeting, the bank’s ex-employees would be able to supply the required corroboration regarding the cash payments.  I further detailed to the meeting, the plant and wagons used, the problems the ‘Lads’ and Shell encountered with the nuclear decommissioning, etc., etc. 

However, any hopes of progress were dashed, for the meeting turned out to be little more than a  ‘fishing' expedition by Shell.  The undertakings, given by Shell, at the meeting, were immediately dishonoured.  For once Shell had concluded (or feared), that my evidence could 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.  The said letter was an outrageous, cynical, calculated, face-saving PR move, for Shell's representatives had embarrassingly (for Shell), agreed to contact 'Shell's bank' ex-employees in order to establish the truth, or otherwise, of the alleged 'cash payments'  Shell, following the meeting, aware of the truth, forbid 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, regarding its nuclear dumping crimes.

Following my refusal, to take part in the Shell's 'we need to know 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, as per Hugh Dorans, that I make 'my' witnesses available to Shell.  Shell's deeply corrupt and cynical structure was amply demonstrated by this episode.  For 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 notifying Shell that I would not only reveal my witnesses, I further offered Shell the opportunity to interview them!  Shell's 'top brass' having made the demands- as part of their 'we are investigating charade/pr exercise’ -refused, once offered, the very 'conditions' they had demanded.  hence, Shell are exposed for what they are; a deeply cynical and corrupt orginisation.  As  my letter of June 2000 further demonstrates:

'I 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 refuse! 

I offered to interview former Shell directors, who were aware of the sham nature of the Narrative, prior to its construction.  You refuse! 

I remind you that in spite of your (Shell) numerous undertakings, I now find that not only does Mr Sweeney refuse to respond to my letter of 5 May, ‘he asks you’ (Shell) to forward the fact that ‘he will not be responding’.  

There seems hardly any point in detailing further examples.’   

All 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 nuclear dumping.'


Following the said meeting, and Shell's subsequent dishonouring of its commitments/agreements I wrote to Graeme Sweeney (Shell Thornton's MD) on the 5 May 2000:

‘You will recall that at the close of our meeting of the 12 January 1999 you undertook on behalf of Shell, (and I might add following our conversation and subsequent hand shake, I took it also as a personal undertaking) to investigate and report back to me, the following:

1)      The cash payments authorised by Shell in 1968, at director level, and subsequently made via your bank.  You will recall that you (Shell) undertook to contact the bank, in order that they would forward names and addresses of former employees.  They would, as I indicated, be able to verify the cash payments.  Furthermore, they will be able to attest to the fact that payments, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds (at today’s prices) was made, to those you chose to employ in order to carry out the nuclear decommissioning at Thornton Research Centre.  Shell’s desire that such amounts were paid out in cash (not even a signature of acceptance of the cash was required), would indicate a most 'unusual' occurrence.

2)        You further undertook to contact ex-employees, (whom Shell had interviewed in 1993/4), at director, and other, level.  You stated, at our meeting, that they had recently been contacted, and was surprised when I informed this was not universally so.

3)      Despite the fact that over one year has passed, I still await the fulfillment of your undertakings.  There are several other matters you undertook to investigate and report back, to me.  However, these two will do for now.’  


Thornton’ MD was instructed not to reply.  Instead Shell’s legal head, Richard Wiseman, informed via his fax and letter of the 8 June 2000: 

‘Dr Sweeney has asked me to confirm that he will not be replying to the correspondence sent to him and that he is content that my letters reflect his views and those of the company.’    


Shell policy is now, following the 'collapse' of its previous Cobalt-60 Narrative strategy, to brazen its nuclear dumping crimes out.