EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHELL IN FEBRUARY 2007: Bill Campbell, Shell and the Brent Bravo Scandal
Because of the importance of the matters covered in the article “Shell CEO Letter of Censure to Malcolm Brinded, Executive Director of Shell EP”, we emailed extracts to Keith Ruddock, General Counsel for Shell EP with an offer to supply the complete draft article.
Below is a selection of the correspondence which was all between John Donovan and Mr Ruddock.
This was the predictable blanket denial received from Shell: -
Email from Keith Ruddock
20 February 2007
Dear Mr Donovan
We disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of the material you have produced but believe that no useful purpose would be achieved by engaging in a detailed rebuttal. We continue to expressly reserve our position in respect of these matters.
Regards
Keith Ruddock
General Counsel Exploration and Production
Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.
The Hague, The Netherlands - Trade Register no. 27002688
Address: Kessler Park 1, 2288 GS Rijswijk, The Netherlands
Internet: http://www.shell.com
Email ends...
We highlighted in the extracts sent to Ruddock (and copied to Van der Veer, Brinded and Jorma Ollila) the fact that Jeroen van der Veer had issued a Letter of Censure to Malcolm Brinded.
However, given the importance of a Letter of Censure we sent a further email, also copied to the same individuals (who were copied on all subsequent email correspondence).
EMAIL TO KEITH RUDDOCK
27 February 2007
Subject: Brent Bravo and Mr Bill Campbell
Dear Mr Ruddock
We note the usual blanket denial.
We are however publishing an article today which includes reference to a Letter of Censure involving Mr Jeroen van der Veer and Mr Malcolm Brinded. This is obviously an important matter in its own right.
If you are able to categorically state that there is no substance whatsoever to any such letter or communication, then we will remove all reference to it.
The article will be published this afternoon.
Regards
John Donovan
EMAIL FROM KEITH RUDDOCK
27 February 2007
Dear Mr Donovan,
In your email to me of 20th February, 2007, you stated, inter alia, that:
"Jeroen van der Veer has sent a Letter of Censure to Brinded. It concluded that Brinded was wrong to dismiss Campbell as SIEP Lead Auditor. Brinded was also required to apologise personally to PSMR team members. A note to be issued by Brinded to EP staff and audit professionals was drafted. The tone implied that Brinded was on first name terms with “Bill”. In fact they had not spoken for a decade."
In response I can confirm that there was no letter or other communication from Mr van der Veer concluding or indicating that Mr Brinded had been wrong to dismiss Mr Campbell as SIEP Lead Auditor. Equally, when Mr Brinded spoke to the Shell members of the PSMR team at the end of last year, he did so entirely of his own volition. No one had instructed him to do so. The proposed statement to EP staff was being prepared by Shell in joint consultation with Mr Campbell, as an attempt to find a mutually acceptable way forward with him - at the same time taking this as another opportunity to re-stress critical safety messages internally, and associating Mr Campbell with them positively. The contents of that proposed statement were discussed at some length with Mr Campbell, and the more familiar use of "Bill" was intended to make the tone more engaging for staff - especially as this was how Mr Campbell was known by former colleagues, including by Mr Brinded - and not to imply that Mr Campbell had been in direct contact with Mr Brinded in recent years.
Accordingly, I do not believe that there is any basis for you including reference to any such purported communication in your article.
Yours sincerely,
Keith Ruddock
EMAIL TO KEITH RUDDOCK
27 February 2007
Dear Mr Ruddock
I am grateful for your response. We will not publish this story until we have considered your response carefully and we will certainly take into account the information you have kindly provided. We may seek further clarification from you on the same issue after checking with our sources and information already in our possession.
In this connection, it might be helpful for you to see one of the three documents recently supplied to us by a source (not Bill Campbell). The Making of Amends document (printed below) is the main reference source for our draft article. I may be able to let you have sight of the other documents which run to over a hundred pages if you would like to see them prior to publication (we will be publishing all three documents).
We would ideally like Shell to have a proper opportunity to clarify, rebut, or correct any such information, particularly if you are able to do so on a categorical basis. We are prepared to delay publication to this end.
An indication of the importance of this matter can be gauged from the fact that you have now included Michiel Brandjes in the correspondence. We realised the significance of the story immediately we received the documents and want to deal it on a responsible basis. Hence our approach to Shell in the first place.
Regards
John Donovan
EMAIL TO KEITH RUDDOCK
27 February 2007
Dear Mr Ruddock
It is probably wrong of me to be suspicious of lawyers but I note that you chose to respond to my email of 20th February rather than answer directly the question I asked today about what you describe as a “purported communication”. It would be very easy for you to clear up this point by simply answering on an unambiguous basis the question I put to you today. You now also have the precise formulation used by Mr Campbell to describe the Letter of Censure and associated matters. An unambiguous categorical denial would also deal with what he has stated. Otherwise the door is left open that such a communication was contemplated or issued, even if the content was different to that stated in our draft or by Mr Campbell.
I note the confirmation that Mr Brinded did speak to Shell members of the PSMR team at the end of last year. Perhaps you will find Mr Campbell’s account in “The Making of Amends” document to be more accurate that our interpretation.
If you want to deal with “The Making of Amends” on a detailed basis (which we would welcome) then for the sake of clarity and the understanding of our readers, it would be appreciated if you would use plain unambiguous language so that there is no room for doubt or misinterpretation. You could insert your comments in red text in the appropriate places throughout the document. Alternatively if you want us to publish on an unedited basis, a linked article supplied by Shell, that would also be fine. We are always willing to publish on an unedited basis any response which Shell wishes to make to any article published on our websites. That is a standing invitation. I do not believe that we could be fairer.
EXTRACTS FROM A FURTHER EMAIL TO KEITH RUDDOCK
On 28 February I sent a further email to Mr Ruddock saying...
It is only fair to advise you of further information regarding the above subject.
I informed him that overnight review of evidence confirmed that during a discussion between Campbell and someone very senior at Shell, the letter to Brinded was “specifically described as a Letter of Censure” and that the content of the letter was also discussed. I pointed out that the evidence was at variance with what Mr Ruddock had stated. I asked him to bear this in mind when making any further response.
I closed the email by stating: “I believe all we know what letter we are talking about even if Shell now chooses to take the view that it was not a Letter of Censure, despite evidence to the contrary.”
Regards
John Donovan
REPLY EMAIL FROM KEITH RUDDOCK
28 February 2007
Dear Mr Donovan
I refer to your emails of 27th February and 28th February. I have attempted to answer your points in an open manner. It is clear that you are endeavouring to ascribe meanings to my comments which go beyond a natural interpretation. Given your responses, I do not believe that it is constructive to continue a dialogue on this topic with you. In any event, the matters described in "The Making of Amends" document relate to areas of disagreement between Shell and Mr Campbell. Mr Campbell has now retained a solicitor to advise him on these issues. We therefore believe that the appropriate avenue of communication on these matters going forward is properly between us and Mr Campbell and his legal advisers.
Please note, however, that the lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell's part of any of the points made by you or Mr Campbell, whether now or in the future, and we continue to reserve our position in respect of those matters.
Yours sincerely
Keith Ruddock
EMAIL TO KEITH RUDDOCK
1st March 2007
Subject: Mr Bill Campbell and Shell
Dear Mr Ruddock
With the greatest respect, instead of the bobbing and weaving you could have simply stated that in the context of the above subject there has been no letter that could be construed as a Letter of Censure.
The fact that you are unable to make an unambiguous denial along these lines speaks volumes.
The article will be published this afternoon along with the associated documents and email correspondence.
If there is any further response, I will add it to the published correspondence.
Otherwise I will consider that the correspondence has ended.
Regards
John Donovan
Email correspondence ends...