Johndyer@nuclearcrimes.com

R M Wiseman

UK General Counsel

Shell International Limited

Shell Centre

London  SE1 7NA.

(recorded delivery)

Your Ref:  LSUK(?) 

9 March 2001

Dear Mr. Wiseman, 

Thank you for your letter of the 6 March.  However, I again find that Shell, unable to address the issues, resorts to deceit. 

You state (that)- ‘All of the points made in my letter of the 17 February 2001 to Joanne Chandler ('Assistant – Sustainable Development' Shell International Limited), have (previously) been dealt with by either yourself of D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers in this matter).   

I wrote (in my letter to which you ‘responded’):

‘Having 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?’   

In view of the outright, and shameless lie (that) -‘All of the points have been dealt with at length by yourself and D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, I challenge you to forward one single occasion (never mind ‘at length’) when either yourself, Shell and/or Freeman’s have answered the ‘Armstrong’ question?   Please, for once directly answer a question, don’t ignore it, pretend you don’t understand it- now either substantiate or withdraw your slur.  Failing that, perhaps you would like me to send you copies of correspondence in which yourself, Shell and its lawyers are directly asked to answer the ‘Armstrong’ question-this complete with (all) the outright refusals to address, never mind answer the question!

I wrote:

‘You 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’. 

In view of your statement that -‘All of the points have been dealt with at length by yourself and/or D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, I am at a loss to understand how this can be, for I have never raised this issue (this being the first time I have ever heard this particular Shell line), hence, it is difficult to see how, why or when you, Shell or Freeman’s have answered the above question, as I have never previously posed it.  I await your answer with some interest.  Of course, you will not reply, as per usual, for self-evident reasons!   

I wrote:

‘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.’

In view of your statement that -‘All of the points have been dealt with at length by yourself and/or D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, please forward (just) one single occasion when either yourself, Shell and/or Freeman’s have requested/asked me-‘to provide Shell, or any independent third party with specific evidence to enable further investigations to take place’?  Just one!  That’s the challenge, don’t duck it, or ignore it.  Just for once try directly answering the actual question posed, instead of engaging in fanciful flights of the imagination, in an effort to cover-up Shell’s nuclear dumping crimes. 

I wrote:

‘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?   

Further, 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  (USAA)

United States of America Navy  (USAN)

Westcott Rocket Propulsion Laboratory.  

Yes or No?   

In view of your claim (that)-‘All of the (above) points have been dealt with at length by yourself and/or D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, please forward one single occasion when either you, Shell and/or Freeman’s have supplied answers to the above questions?   Or perhaps you would rather that I forward copies of correspondence, to both yourself/Shell and Freeman’s, requesting answers to the above?  As you are perfectly well aware, Shell, yourself and Freeman’s have repeatedly refused to address, never mind answer, the above questions, for self-evident reasons. 

I wrote:

1.   Who, if and when, authorised Shell International Limited, to speak on behalf of Shell Research Limited and or the Royal Dutch/Shell Group? 

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?’ 

In view of your claim that -‘All of the points have been dealt with at length by yourself and/or D J Freeman (Shell’s lawyers)’, please state, one instance (never mind ‘at length’) when you or Freeman’s have answered the above questions?   Please answer, or withdraw. 

I wrote:

‘Now, 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:

1. The Narrative of 7 February 1994, fully confirms the ‘witnesses’ accounts that Harwell scientists were dressed, from head to foot in protective gear. Seeing they were not ‘dressed, from head to foot in protective gear’ for the demolition of the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, what other possible Shell Thornton ‘demolition/ job’ were the Harwell scientists dressed in the said manner, for?  Please answer.

2. The Narrative of 7 February 1994, confirms the ‘witnesses’ accounts that the ‘scientists’ were ‘armed’ with Geiger counters.  Seeing the Geiger counters were not for the demolition of the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, what they were for?  What other possible Shell Thornton ‘demolition/job’ were Harwell scientists armed with Geiger counters present for?  Please answer.

3. The Narrative of 7 February 1994, confirms the ‘witnesses’ accounts that the Geiger counters went like the ‘clappers’. Since they did not ‘go like the clappers’ at the Cobalt-60’s demolition.  What other Shell Thornton ‘job’ did the said Geiger counters ‘go like the clappers’ for?  Please answer.

4. The Narrative of 7 February 1994, confirms the ‘witnesses’ accounts of the  ‘problems’ with ‘pipes’.  What other Shell Thornton ‘job’ were Harwell scientists present at, dressed from head to foot in protective gear, complete with breathing apparatus and Geiger counters, when problems of retrieving ‘pipes’ were encounted? Please answer.

In light of your letter, I would be obliged if you would forward a single instance when you/Shell and/or Freeman’s have answered the above questions.  Failing that, would like me to forward endless examples/copies of my correspondence, to both yourself/Shell and Freeman’s, requesting answers to the above?  Along with your/Shell/ Freeman’s refusals!   

These are some of the many questions raised in my letter which Shell, in pursuit of its ‘brazen it out, admit nothing strategy’, refuses to supply answers. 

Yours sincerely,

John Dyer