Dyer Chandler
Home Up

 

 

Johndyer@nuclearcrimes.com

Joanne Chandler,

Assistant - Sustainable Development
Shell International Limited

Shell Centre,

London SE1 7NA

(sent by recordered-delivery)

 17 February 2001

 Dear Ms Chandler,

 I have received a copy of your response to Mr. Phillip Coe.  

You state: 

We 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".’

You 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. 

You state: 

‘The 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.’ 

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?   

Royal 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 1999: 

‘We (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 line. 

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’,

You state: 

‘A 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.’  

‘A great deal of time has been devoted to investigating his claims’.  Oh yeah!

‘We (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.

‘Indeed, 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.   

However, 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.   

Following my 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'. 

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’) 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 dumping crimes.  

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):  

‘You (Richard Wiseman) state: 

“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.’ 

'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 (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’.’  

‘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.'

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.

You state:

‘Mr Dyer has now threatened to begin legal proceedings against Shell and has launched a website’. 

 My 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.’ 

 

You state:  

‘For 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?   

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?   

Consequent 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 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?

You close your ‘letter’ thus:

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 allegations.’     

‘Shell 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: 

‘Your (J Dyer) assertion that in the past people on our side have been untruthful is completely denied’ 

A couple of days later, Shell’s legal head insisted: 

The statement contained in paragraph 1 is not just “an official position”, it is the truth’  

He maintained in his letter of 2 October, that Shell Research Limited had: 

'provided 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'   

It logically 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.   

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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

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?’ 

This 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? 

‘We have sought always to treat Mr Dyer respectfully’ is breathtakingly at variance with reality.  

·         Shell’s ‘discredit-the-messenger’ 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 allegations.’    

31 May 2000:

‘If 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.’

9 June 2000:

‘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.’  (Shell either turned these, as per all my offers, down, or simply refused to address them)

 27 June 2000:

‘ 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 alone.’

I 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’ files.

  

Yours sincerely,

 

 

John Dyer.