Dyer-Sweeney 2
Home Up Dyer-Sweeney 3




Graeme Sweeney

Shell Research Limited

PO Box 1

Chester CH1 3SH.

 5 May 2000

Your ref:  TSS/50


Dear Mr. Graeme Sweeney, 

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.  

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

 On the 4 February 1999, I wrote to the Managing Director of Shell Transport & Trading, Mr. Mark Moody-Stuart.  In reply, Mr Moody-Stuart, as per your letter of the 28 January 1999, indicated my unwillingness to co-operate in this matter. This unfounded smear can now be corrected. As I informed, and your colleagues, at our meeting, to quote my letter to you of 8/2/99:

“As the tapes, of our meeting of 12/1/99, demonstrate I offered to hand over virtually my entire body of evidence, excluding the names of any individuals, who would not authorise disclosure. That evidence would have included the tens of thousands of pages of ‘documents’ in my possession. Details of the nuclear dumpsites, health statistics, identification of the building, tapes, etc., etc. Unfortunately, you rejected that outright. So much for your assertion (excuse) that I have refused to provide the required information, and hence your inability to investigate matters. This, incidentally, from a Company that has outright refused to supply me with virtually any information, whatsoever!”

Your (Shell’s) considered response, dated 19 February 1999, consisted of twelve words:

 “Thank you for your letter of 8 February. We note the contents of your letter.” 

So much for your inability to investigate matters, as a result of my ‘failure to supply information’. As an act of gross irresponsibility, showing complete the disregard Shell displays for the consequences on the countless thousands of individuals who have been victims of your illegal disposal of nuclear waste is, well to mis-quote George Steiner ‘language is, at best, an inadequate bridge to convey meaning’. The fact that the dumped material included high level (nuclear) waste only serves to expose the gravity of the situation.

For the record, prior to our meeting I had made the same offers to Shell, via Shell Legal Director, Mr. Richard Wiseman. 



John Dyer