Comment 2

With Shell's no reactor/Cobalt-60 narrative in tatters, despite internal dissent, I (John Dyer) was invited to a formal, "we need to get at the truth" meeting at Shell's Thornton Research Centre, on Tuesday 12 January 1999, at 2.30 pm.

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

At the meeting, I reiterated concerns regarding Shell Thornton’s nuclear reactor disposal. Shell maintains it is unaware of the events related to its decommissioning. Hence, I outlined how Shell could verify the initial claim: substantial cash payments (over £500,000) made to individuals hired for the 1968 decommissioning at the Thornton Research Centre. Dr Graeme Sweeney, head of Thornton, acknowledged that half a million pounds in cash payments (in today’s money) were “highly unusual”. I informed the meeting that former bank employees could corroborate these transactions. I also provided details about the plant used and the challenges faced during the decommissioning process.

However, any hopes of progress were dashed, for the meeting turned out to be little more than a ‘fishing' expedition by Shell. Shell immediately dishonored the undertakings it gave at the meeting. 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, prior to the meeting, was fully aware of its nuclear reactor dumping, prohibited any actions that could compromise the Group’s ability to maintain its policy of denying knowledge of its nuclear dumping.

Following my refusal to take part in Shell's 'we need to know your witnesses' charade, Shell senior directors-starting with the Group’s Legal Head, RM Wiseman, Chairman of Shell Transport & Trading, Mark Moody-Stuart, and Shell Thornton's MD, Dr Graeme Sweeney—all wrote demanding, as per Dr Hugh Dorans, that I make 'my' witnesses available to Shell. This episode clearly showed Shell's deeply corrupt and cynical structure. After receiving four letters—from the Group's Head, its Legal Head, Thornton's MD, and Dr Hugh Dorans—I decided to test the sincerity of their demands by notifying Shell that I would not only reveal my witnesses but also offer them the opportunity to interview them. Shell's 'top brass', having demanded as part of Shell’s 'we are unable to investigate' charade, refused to interview or contact the witnesses. Shell, a deeply cynical, corrupt organization, as my letter of 9 June 2000 shows:

'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’.

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.’

Greame Sweeney, 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.’