RAY FOX NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE
| Note: Many documents available on this webpage are pdf which means they will take time to load so please be patient. The advantage of pdf is that the text can be copied, is fully searchable and can picked up by Google so that the information is given wider circulation on the Internet. |
TV & RADIO PROGRAMME LINKS BELOW PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE RAY FOX STORY
Channel 4 TV “Mark Thomas’ Secret Map of Britain”:
“Welcome to the most polluted house in Britain…”
The dramatic introduction in a Channel 4 TV programme “Mark Thomas’ Secret Map of Britain” about Ray Fox and the most polluted house in Britain. The house in Wokingham Road, Earley, Reading, is next door to an alleged buried secret nuclear reactor on a former Shell petrochemical terminal. The package includes an interview with toxicologist Dr Dick Van Steenis (who says Ray has symptoms and effects of radioactive poisoning) and with Dr Chris Busby BSc, PhD, C.Chem, MRSC, a radiation scientist. Mark Thomas states that soil tests carried out by Dr Busby at the house revealed some of the highest levels of plutonium and uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain. Busby says in the report that the unique footprint of the uranium came from a nuclear reactor. Shell was quoted as stating that no nuclear material was ever stored or processed at the site which Shell sold for a housing development without disclosing ANY nuclear history of the site.
Segment broadcast on London News Network “London Tonight” news on 18 July 2002: Reporter Sharon Thomas tells the story about alleged massive levels of radioactive contamination of Ray Fox…
Says tests revealed plutonium levels 40 times higher than normal background radiation in Rays garden. Reports that although Shell had permission to store radioactive material at the Earley Terminal next door it says that it never did so. Ray accuses Shell of a cover-up. Report includes a statement by Shell saying the licence would not have covered plutonium and said “We can state categorically that our former depot at Earley was never used by us for any purpose than the storage of conventional oil products”. The Environmental Agency said that tests at neighbouring gardens showed normal background radiation.
Ealing Studios video of the Ray Fox story headlined “Suburb Poisoned By Plutonium”
Includes an interview with Dr Josef Kees who states that his tests found traces of uranium in the bloodstream and fatty tissue of Ray Fox at double normal expectancy.
Unofficial transcript of BBC Radio 4 programme: The Bunker First broadcast on 6 October 2003
The withering review by Wakefield ends with the sentence “Disappointing journalism, though.” In this connection, it is indeed disappointing to note that the author neglected to declare that he is Dr Richard Wakefield, Principle Research Scientist of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd – the expert often trotted out by BNF in the case of actual or potential claims against BNF and its predecessor, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, which as we reveal, was a partner of Royal Dutch Shell in secret nuclear projects.
RELATED RADIOACTIVITY SURVEY AT AND NEAR RAY FOX’S HOUSE, 337 WOKINGHAM RD, EARLEY, READING ON 17 JUNE 2003 FOR BBC RADIO 4 :17 June 2003
Published in 2006
EXTRACTS FROM PAGES 434 to 443 INCLUSIVE – THESE COMPLETE PAGES ARE ACCESSIBLE VIA ABOVE LINK
The nuclear project, however, has left behind some dark secrets. And without sophisticated radiation measuring equipment, the exposures are invisible.
The most bizarre example is the buried Shell reactor in Reading, a large town in Berkshire. All the evidence points to the existence, several metres underneath a normal, quiet suburban housing estate, of a buried nuclear reactor, corroded and leaching its contents into the groundwater. The locals say that there is a high level of childhood leukaemia in the area; but no one really knows, as the health authority and the cancer registry will not release data to examine the assertions.
First some background. The area around Reading has a statistically significant excess of childhood leukaemia, first flagged up by the local paediatric specialist at the Reading Royal Infirmary, Dr Carol Barton.
Because of the strange influences on child leukaemia, we called this area, between Newbury, Reading and Oxford, the ‘Leukaemia Triangle’. I sent a letter to the British Medical Journal and they published it! 1t was picked up by all the major newspapers and became a cause célèbre.
Enter Ray Fox
Ray Fox wrote to me sometime around 1997 to ask my advice. He sent me photographs of his body, which showed large areas of red rashes and blistering. ‘Could it have been caused by radiation?’ he asked, and told me his story. Ray is a short, tough-looking, but also unwell-looking character with a cockney accent, a tenacious attitude (as well he might have, given his experiences) and a kind of desperate angry energy. He lived, until recently, in Earley, near Reading, Berkshire at 337 Wokingham Road. In the mid 1990s he dug up a drain at the bottom of his garden to clear a blockage that was flooding his garden. The land drain crossing the corner of his property was blocked with some tarry black material, which Ray cleared away. Shortly after this he became seriously ill. His body became covered in what appeared to be bums and blisters. The symptoms (including other symptoms which he recounted) appeared to be those of radiation poisoning. He had urine analysis done in Germany where slightly increased levels of Uranium and Plutonium were detected. Following Ray’s complaint about the drain, the plutonium and his illness, Shell immediately arranged for contractors to visit the property and dig up the drain, water jet the remaining sewer and close the system up, replacing all the material they removed with fresh soil.There began several years of struggle to obtain an explanation for his illness and its origin, a struggle that has slowly revealed elements of what appear to be a most extraordinary cover-up – a secret underground atomic research site operated in Reading in the 1960s by the Shell Oil Company as part of a research effort into the development of atom bombs. As a result of the energy Ray put into investigating the cause of his illness, he managed to get all the evidence he had collected and all the results of the measurements that were made to the media.
Quite a few programmes were made, including prime time documentaries on TV and a BBC Radio 4 piece called ‘In The Bunker’, which was a highlight of the week it was broadcast and was repeated by popular demand. In this documentary, I went down a sewer behind Ray’s house (where the trouble had begun) with radiation monitoring equipment, the echoing commentary as I crawled underground, kitted up in gas mask and all the measuring gear, was reminiscent of a science fiction movie sound track.
The drain Ray had unblocked was an illegal connection to the public land drain to the River Loddon draining material from the Shell ‘oil depot’. I first visited he house and garden and employed our gamma spectrometer to make radiation measurements of Ray’s house and garden as part of the Mark Thomas investigation on Channel 4 TV. Beta and alpha scintillation counting showed very slightly raised levels and there were slightly elevated levels of radiation, mainly gamma signals from natural Thorium 234. The house itself had slightly high levels of radiation, particularly the lower block work in some rooms, but none were high enough to be considered a health risk in themselves. Samples were taken on behalf of Ray’s insurance company and sent by their advisor, Dr Karta Badsha, to be analysed by LGC in Teddington. Results showed the presence of various toxic organic chemicals and heavy metals, as would be expected from groundwater near an oil depot, but there were also some very interesting radiochemical results which connect us with the Greenham fire and the leukaemia triangle. These are shown in Table 17.2.1.
(Table is displayed on page 439 of the featured pages accessible via above link)
These measurements indicate the presence of material from a nuclear reactor for the following reasons. With regard to the Plutonium, prior to 1945 the background level of Plutonium would have been zero. Since global weapons testing the background level in soil and grassland should be about 0.02 to 0.7 Bq/kg, as measured by Cawse and Horrill in the 1970s. Since then, the sea to land transfer of plutonium from Sellafield has increased these values to about 1-2 Bq/kg and in the area near Aldermaston readings as high as 5-10Bq/kg were found in a few samples near the perimeter fence. However, in the largest analytical exercise run in the area of Berkshire, the Newbury survey of 1997, very few samples gave levels higher than 2Bq/kg. Thus the house dust sample of 4.9Bq/kg shows a level 100 to 500 times higher than expected on the basis of weapons fallout. Plutonium 239 comes from the fission of Uranium 235 in a reactor or a bomb, or from reprocessing of spent fuel.
Here is my own interpretation of it all. Having met many of the people who knew and read all the documents that have been unearthed, this Earley story is part of a larger one, which is about the cold war research into bombs.
Leukaemia clusters, cancer clusters and the Cold war
When the first research into nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and the uses of radiation generally, was being undertaken, Shell was a big player. At Earley, they were examining the possibilities associated with radiation, radioactive materials and organic solvents. This would be almost impossible for them not to have done.
The Shell site undertook research into the reactions between organic solvents and Uranium and Plutonium, to see if they could develop liquid nuclear fuels, creating organometallic compounds, chemical adducts of U-235 and hydrocarbons or ethers, solubilising the radioactive elements so that they would be movable by pumping through tubes.
The buried reactor story is only one of similar Cold War inheritances. For example, a Mr John Dwyer contacted me some years ago about another research reactor operated by Shell on the Wirral near Birkenhead (where Shell have a big refinery and research setup and where I worked many years ago for a short time). Dwyer has evidence that Shell made a chemical reactor using strontium-90 to beta irradiate solvents to see if there was any mileage in using radiation for chemical production. Mr Dwyer told me that the reactor had to be broken up in the 1980s and a team from Harwell turned up to advise. No one knew what to do. The whole affair was a nightmare of radioactivity. Dwyer alleges that it was taken away by private operators and buried in parts of North Wales. There are leukaemia clusters in parts of North Wales. The authorities say they are chance clusters.
Related impressive CV of Dr Chris Busby published in same book, “Wolves of Water” (also back cover page with reference to “buried nuclear reactors under housing estates…”)
Extract:
1. Background
I was asked by the BBC to investigate the levels of radioactivity in a land water drain at the end of the garden of 337 Wokingham Rd on 17th June 2003. This was further to some earlier evidence that there had been contamination of the garden and house at this address by isotopes from a nuclear reactor or bomb, specifically Uranium-235 and Plutonium 239. There had also been evidence brought forward that suggested that the site to the north of the property, previously owned by Shell Ltd, had been the location of an underground nuclear reactor and experimental nuclear laboratory which had suffered some accident in the 1980s and had been abandoned. Therefore I also made a brief survey of radioactivity in the vicinity of the property to see if there was any gamma or other evidence for the existence of this reactor.Conclusion
This exercise and its results support the conclusion that there is a source of material from a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb in the vicinity of the property. The absolute levels of the material remaining in the drain do not allow us to conclude that the drain itself was the main source of this contamination. However, since the drain has been cleaned and water-jetted in the early 1990s it is unlikely that much material would have remained and so the Caesium to Plutonium ratios are consistent with the conclusion that highly concentrated material containing Plutonium-239 was at one time in the drain and that we are measuring the small amount that has remained after cleaning and the passage of more than 10 years.
New Information relevant to the reputation and credibility of Professor Busby added March 2012
Post-Fukushima ‘anti-radiation’ pills condemned by scientists: Guardian Newspaper 21 November 2011
Christopher Busby’s wild claims hurt green movement and Green party: Guardian Newspaper 22 November 2011
RELATED ARTICLES:
The Guardian: Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA: A 50-year-old agreement with the IAEA has effectively gagged the WHO from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation: 28 May 2009
Chernobyl area doctors and researchers contradict predicted UN mortality figures as being far too low years after disaster: http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/Chernobyl_deaths_contradicted
CORRESPONDENCE FILE
Letter from Thames Water Authority to Shell UK Oil: Pollution – River Loddon. Earley Storage Depot: 25 March 1976
Notification to Shell of “serious pollution of the River Loddon” from the Shell Earley “Storage Depot” seeking views on “contamination from your premises…”
Reply letter to Thames Water Authority from Shell U.K. Oil: 14 May 1976
Shell reply blames pollution on new drainage which in the light of subsequent unauthorised discharge on adjoining property was apparently defective and illegal.
Decontamination letters from Shell to Mr R Collett, 8 Crompton Close, Earley Reading: Nov/Dec 1993
Letter from Shell announcing plans to “decontaminate” the Shell site at Earley prior to pending sale of the property. Further letter contains an apology from Shell “if our letter came as somewhat of a shock”. Offers reassurance over decontamination. It is interesting to note this is the “Richard Collett” interviewed in “The Bunker” programme when he described noticing “buried empty rooms” at the time when contractors were removing contaminated soil from the site. Apparently the “decontamination” was not satisfactory because at least one further “decontamination” was subsequently carried out. The site was also decontaminated after a chemical fire which according to reports at the time, included an explosion. None of the decontaminations apparently prevented the leakage of pollution/radioactivity on to ajoining property.
Letter to Mr Fox from Wokingham District Council confirming contamination of Shell Site: 22 December 1993
Letter says results of an independent survey “showed contamination, within the site boundary, by volatile inorganic hydrocarbons” and that “more heavily contaminated soil is being removed from the site…” Also says: “Samples were taken at the site boundary, but these showed no evidence of contamination, and so I can conclude that there is no risk of contamination of your property or any others adjoining the site.” Apparently the decontamination process was inadequate because, as previously indicated, at least two further decontamination processes had taken place at the site but none apparently prevented leakage of radioactive contamination. To be fair to the contractors involved, none were as far as we know, advised of any nuclear/radioactive history of the site.
Selection of correspondence with Shell Legal Division from 1995
GOOD NEIGHBOUR SHELL
Shell General Counsel Richard Wiseman blames Thames Water for a broken sewer resulting in discharge on Mr Fox’s garden, before shifting position. Eventually, while denying responsibility for contamination, Shell agrees to inspect and clean the drain. In a letter dated 26 October 1995, Shell admits that it does not “dispute the analysis of the samples taken from the drain by your expert and Thames Water” but continues to deny that “any contamination in your garden is the responsibility of this Company…” In a letter to John Redwood MP, Wiseman claims that Shell is helping Mr Fox on a “good neighbour basis by arranging for the drain to be cleaned and inspected at our expense while the legal situation is clarified.” This was an unfortunate comment bearing in mind that poisoning people as a byproduct of a commercial enterprise hardly falls within the definition of being a “good neighbour”. Shell has a track record of contaminating the environment and has paid huge fines for so doing. The Wikipedia record shows that Shell is a deadly neighbour, not a good one.
From Wikipedia: Royal Dutch Shell Environmental Issues:
Release of chemical pollutants at Shell Texas Deer Park complex
Emission violations at Shell Martinez refinery in California
Environmental infringements by Shell in Louisiana
Groundwater contamination by Shell in USA
Unauthorised venting and flaring of gas by Shell in USA
Shell Pipeline rupture in Washington
Environmental law infringements in Brazil
Refinery contamination in Texas
Emission violations at Shell Wood River Refinery in Illinois
Shell settles Martinez Refinery dumping suit for $3 Million
Shell fined $19.75 million for oil spill from Martinez Refinery
Selection of correspondence with Shell Legal Division 1996
Dr G Lethbridge of Shell’s Thornton Research Centre (now dealing with such matters at Shell Global Solutions) becomes involved. This suggests a serious concern by Shell at what was going on at Earley.
Report from Clayton Environmental Consultants plus associated correspondence with Shell Legal Division: March/April 1996
Clayton Environmental Consultants were present when during the cleaning and inspection of the drain as arranged by Shell and confirmed in their report that there was an oil discharge from the pipe which appeared fractured/open jointed at two locations. Subsequent letter from Shell legal division notified Mr Fox of Shell’s intention to repair the drain.
Selection of correspondence with Shell Legal Division 1997
Mr Fox writes to Shell saying he has received notification that a planning application has been made to build 42 houses on the Shell site. He also complained about the death of trees in his garden from “clear contamination”. Wiseman replies on 2 May saying “your horticultural problems cannot be attributed to escape of product from this Company’s premises.” On 16 May Wiseman sends a letter headed “CONTAMINATION AT 337 WOKINGHAM ROAD READING”. The letter contained an offer which was not made on a “without prejudice” basis to carry out work on the drain by inserting a sleeve. Instead the offer was made on the basis that no further claims would be brought against Shell. Mr Wiseman seemed understandably keen to draw Mr Fox into the agreement which, for the cost of a modification to a drain, would have relieved Shell of all future liability. Peanuts compared with a potential claim by Fox arising from contamination by toxic poisons or undeclared radioactive materials.
Shell legal division confirms that in 1986 a fire took place at the Shell Terminal in Earley. A Shell letter dated 5 December 1997 revealed that the site was “remediated” (decontaminated) based on “target contamination levels”. The following are extracts from the letter Mr Fox sent to Wiseman on 25 February 1998:
1) With regard to the chemical fire ( confirmed by your Mr Files letter of 7/11/1997 ref;– UKLG/\ 1!S94F) the subject of the follow up article is the production of large quantities of those highly documented mutagenic and carcinogenic compounds DIOXINS and PAHs which were an inevitable consequence of this type of fire.
2) The question of why no action was taken to inform local residents of the possible horrendous medical problems that could result from contact contamination from these compounds that are a proven cause of cancer and genetic abnormalities such as babies being born with limbs or organs missing. These effects are extremely well documented world wide and reference to the literature and reports of the US government’s Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Health, US Toxic Substances Registry and the World Health Organisation’s long term study of Sevcsco will all confirm this.
3) With reference to your consultants Fairhurst’s report post remediation April 1994, PAR contamination was confirmed in the area of the fire and in other parts of the your former Earley site.
5) The question of why, given that the PAH contamination recorded in the Fairhurst report of April 1994, not one single test was taken by CET in September 1996 in area 4b and this is confirmed in their report that was submitted to WOC with Persimmon’s planning application for your former Earley. The fact that the PAH contamination was known and recorded at woe raises the question as to how planning consent for housing on tills site could possibly have been granted.
Mr M H Files replied on behalf of Wiseman, side-stepping providing a reply to the vitally important issues raised in Mr Fox’s letter. Files informed Mr Fox that Shell had sold the contaminated site to Persimmon Homes and cold-bloodedly stated: “Shell no longer has any interest in the land” (or apparently the dire medical consequences to past and future households in the area arising from the long term contamination).
Wokingham District Council Letter to Shell Legal Division: 5 December 1997
Council seeks information about complete knowledge of previous site uses including all substances stored or used thereon. Shell did not disclose that any nuclear/radioactive material or activity was connected with the site.
Letter from Cllr David Swindells to Gillian Norton, Chief Executive, Wokingham District Council: 5 June 1998
Letter mentions public concern over site contamination issues and expresses hope that the Council will not authorise Persimmon Homes to build on the site until contamination issues resolved.
Letter from MH Files, Shell Legal Department: 3 October 1998
Letter confirms fire at the Shell terminal in 1986. It also refers to the defective drain pipe as being “our connecting pipe”. This is directly at odds with the denials and attempted buck-passing by Wiseman in earlier correspondence when Wiseman said that the pipe belonged to Thames Water. Mr Files was being economical with the truth when he indicated in his letter that Shell had been the site owner since 1976, yet failed to disclose Shell had been the co-owner of the site for many years earlier, when the activity which involved radioactive material may have occurred. We note that the letter contains admissions of a leaking drainage pipe running across Mr Fox’s garden and that contamination levels were above threshold in some areas. When Mr Files referred to “remediation”, was he using this term as a preferred alternative to “decontamination”?
Letter from Cllr David Swindells to Director of Community Services, Wokingham District Council: 20 July 1999
In this letter Cllr Swindells mentions a letter from Woodley Social Services recording that Shell had expressed concerns that the children of Mr & Mrs Fox were at risk, the inference being that they were at risk of being harmed due to the action of their parents. This was of course a very serious allegation.
Letter Deputy Town Clerk, Earley Town Council, to Mr & Mrs Ray Fox: 25 February 2000
Extracts:
As you are aware, at the time the original planning application was submitted by Persimmon Homes, the Town Council expressed its doubts about the suitability of the site for residential development, not only because of the former use of the site, but also from the high-voltage power cables which cross it. We were advised that the land would be cleared of contaminants…”
…and I have been asked to re-affirm that, if the Town Council were asked to consider a similar Planning Application today, they would remain of the opinion that it should be refused.
Letter to Ray Fox from Chief Executive of Slough NHS Primary Trust: 22 October 2002
NHS Primary Health Trust Chief Executive Mike Attwood states: “It is true that your house and garden are contaminated with uranium and plutonium from nuclear reactors.” He goes on to claim: “This is a universal phenomenon since the nuclear industry and weeapons tests began to take place.” Most of the UK population might find his statement to be rather alarming.
Letter to Ray Fox from Richard Wiseman, Shell UK General Counsel: 16 March 2004
16 March 2004
Dear Mr Fox
Thank you for your email of the 10th March. No, you cannot have copies of the correspondence in question. Since you constantly threaten litigation and indeed on several occasions have engaged firms of solicitors and referred to advice recently taken from American lawyers, the correspondence in question is clearly privileged.
I am afraid you have completely misunderstood the material you have obtained. Shell has never been involved in “atomic” or “nuclear” research at the Thornton site or elsewhere in the U.K. Between 1953 and 1966 it conducted research for the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. The research was only ever concerned with developing lubricants for nuclear power plants. It involved subjecting lubricants to controlled emissions of low-level Gamma radiation in a small secure purpose built laboratory at Thornton. The work was conducted strictly in accordance with the Radio Active Substances Acts of 1948 and 1960 and other relevant legislation. The site was properly registered and regularly inspected. We have nothing to hide – we have 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.
Yours sincerely
Shell International Limited
Richard Wiseman
U.K. General Counsel
Green Party Chairman’s letter to UK Government Minister, Nick Raynsford MP: 9 July 2004
EXTRACTS
The Green Party has become aware of the following assertions relating to Mr Ray Fox, of 337 Wokingham Road, Reading, Berkshire. Ray Fox lived until recently in Earley, near Reading, Berkshire.
In the mid 1990s he dug up a drain at the bottom of his garden to clear a blockage which was flooding his garden. The land drain crossing the corner of his property was blocked with some tarry black material which Ray cleared away. Shortly after this he became seriously ill. His body became covered in what
appeared to be burns and blisters.The symptoms appeared to be those of radiation poisoning. Thus began several years of struggle to obtain an explanation for his illness and its origin, a struggle that has slowly revealed elements of what appear to be a most extraordinary cover-up – a secret underground atomic research site operated in Reading in the 1960s by the Shell Oil Company as part of a research effort into the development of atom bombs. Parts of the story have been revealed in newspaper articles and on television, but Dr Chris Busby, of the Green Party has visited the site on two occasions and made radiation measurements. As you will know, on 25th Nov. 2002 Dr Chris Busby and Caroline Lucas MEP had a meeting in Brussels with Stephen Kaiser of the ED Radiation Protection unit to demand that they investigate the situation.
The facts appear to be as follows. Following his contamination and illness, Ray discovered that the drain he had unblocked was an illegal connection to the public land drain to the River Loddon and was apparently draining material from a Shell ‘oil depot’ at Earley, which had existed on a site at the bottom of his garden until the 1980s. After the closure of the depot, the land remained derelict until acquired by a developer in the late 1990s when it was ‘remediated’ by removing a metre of topsoil and replacing it with fresh topsoil. A new housing estate was built on the site and people now live there.
According to the results of tests mentioned in the letter…
“…the Plutonium levels in Ray’s house were up to 60 times higher than would be expected.”
The letter goes on to state: –
“What supports the argument that there has been contamination from a reactor or fissionable nuclear bomb material is the ratio of Uranium-238 to Uranium-235. Although the absolute levels are not high, this ratio is an unmistakable fingerprint for material from a reactor or a bomb core. “
Shell DEFENCE to Action in the High Court Justice Queens Bench Division Case No. HQ06X01271: BETWEEN: Raymond James Fox & Others (Claimant) And Shell U.K. Limited ( Defendant): 31 May 2006
Shell files its defence in relation to High Court proceedings brought against Shell for personal injury and consequential loss by Ray Fox & Others arising from alleged escape of noxious radioactive substances from the Shell Earley Terminal.
Shell quickly brought to the Courts attention that Mr Fox was made bankrupt on 12 February 2001. The bankruptcy arising from a personal guarantee relating to a directorship of a building company has been described in an article as being “highly dubious”. Mr Fox says that a bankruptcy order was made against him while he was abroad receiving specialist medical treatment from radiation exposure. He claims that a forged document was used to obtain the order and that his offer to pay the claimed sum of around £7,000 was declined. He also points out that the order made him bankrupt on an indefinate basis. The bankruptcy does indeed appear dubious to say the least.
Shell denied operating a “nuclear facility” at Earley and that any “radioactive material” was transmitted to Fox’s home. However, Shell did not deny in the defence document that radioactive material was stored at the terminal.
Perhaps even more significantly, Shell said that it would:
“admit that if, contrary to the above, the Claimants prove that the Defendants used or stored radioactive material at the Earley Terminal and that this radioactive material was transmitted from the Earley Terminal to the Claimant’s home then this would represent the breach of relevant duties owed by the Defendants to the Claimants as adjoining occupiers and/or persons living in the vicinity of the Earley Terminal.”
Unfortunately Shell succeeded in blocking the litigation. Prosecution of the claim on a timely basis had been made difficult if not impossible by the bankruptcy order, the associated lack of funds and the continuing ill health of Mr Fox. In blocking the action, Shell also succeeded in preventing the UK Atomic Energy Authority from having to supply relevant documents to Mr Fox in accordance with an application he had made to the courts. Very powerful forces were at work, including almost certainly the British Intelligence Services with whom the UKAEA and Shell have had a long association.
PERSIMMON HOMES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON AN ALLEGEDLY RADIOACTIVE SITE
Leaflet distributed to households in the area notifying that:
1. Planning permission had been granted for a residential development on the former Shell “petrochemical storage site”
2. “Some” decontamination had been carried out by Shell.
3. The site was still contaminated but the Wokingham District Council did not consider that there was any health risk.
4. There was no evidence to support claims made by an unidentified local resident (Ray Fax).
5. The property developer PERSIMMON HOMES had agreed to have a further decontamination process carried out to deal with “known past use of the site” i.e. as a petrochemical storage site.
THE LEAFLET
CONTAMINATED LAND UPDATE PAGE 1 JUNE 1998
CONTAMINATED LAND UPDATE PAGE 2, JUNE 1, 1998
Subsequent Notice to Residents from PERSIMMON HOMES
Notice to residents in Earley, Reading from PERSIMMON HOMES plus letter to Ray Fox: June/July 1998:
For some reason the housing site developers Persimmon Homes appeared to prefer the term “remediation” to “decontamination” when describing the pending treatment of the radioactively contaminated site previously owned by Shell
PERSIMMON HOMES NEWS RELEASE 18 SEPTEMBER 1998 ENTITLED “SAFE AS HOUSES AT EARLEY RISE”
Persimmon Homes Decontamination Validation Report, Earley Rise, Reading: February 1999:
By now Ray Fox had kicked up such a commotion that Persimmon Homes actually used the dreaded word: “Decontamination”.
The former Shell site has been unsuccessfully “decontaminated” at least three times. It appears that no one involved in the repeated decontamination processes were aware of any nuclear/radioactive past history of the site on which the housing development took place.
Webpage for Persimmon Homes Housing Development on an allegedly Radioactive Site
RAY FOX RELATED MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC EXPERT REPORTS
Environmental Risk Assessment carried out on the “target”, 337 Wokingham Road, by RPS Thomson for Wokingham District Council: January 1998
Dr. med. Josef Kees Medical Report on Mr Ray Fox: 3 February 1998
Dr. med. Josef Kees Medical Report on Christopher Fox: 4 February 1999
Dr. med. Josef Kees Analysis Results on Mr Ray Fox: 5 February 1998
Associated photograph of Ray Fox taken in 1998
Test Results by Dr Robert Cass: 3 November 1997
Letter to Ray Fox from Biolab Medical Unit: 21 July 1999
Open Letter from Dr Stephen Hodges, University of Essex: 30 March 2000
Wallace Bacon Consultants Report on Structural Damage337 Wokingham Road: October 2000
Further Medical Report on Mr Ray Fox by Dr. med. Josef Kees supplied to Dr Van Steenis: 3 January 2002
Report of Dr K S Badsha MSc CChem MRSC MAE: Soil analysis and preliminary assessment report carried out for the RoyalSunAlliance insurance company: Study Completion Date: 17th May 2002
Report of Dr Chris Busby PhD on Isotopic ratio Urine sample of Mr Ray Fox formerly of 337 Wokingham Rd Earley, Reading, and its significance: 20 February 2008
Webpage for Ray Fox related Medical/Scientific Expert Reports
JUDGMENT BY COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
SUBMISSION TO THE PRESIDENT OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN JUNE 2007
RELATED JUDGMENT BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: 18 July 2007
SHELL EARLEY CONNECTION WITH THE SAUDI ARABIA / AL YAMAMAH BAE ARMS SCANDAL
Witness Statement of Mr Gerald James 1 June 2007 (24 page pdf document, so please be patience, it will take a while to download)
Gerald James book: IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Comment in House of Commons by Vince Camble MP, former Chief Economist of Shell (Debate on the Al-Yamamah BAE Fraud/Corruption controversy and associated money laundering)
7 Feb 2007: Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD):
“Let me turn to the history of this issue. The al-Yamamah contract originated in the mid-1980s, and the context is often forgotten. It was not achieved primarily as a result of competition and British technological excellence; the context at that time was the very close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States, which both sides wished to perpetuate. However, the problem was that, as President Reagan provided Saudi Arabia with more and more sophisticated equipment, there were objections from Israel. Perfectly understandably, the Israelis were concerned about one of their potential adversaries acquiring sophisticated technology. The situation was not helped, of course, by the tirade of anti-Semitic abuse that often comes from the Saudi authorities. Israel protested, and friends of Israel in the United States Congress blocked the F-15 deal, which was in turn passed on to Britain and Mrs. Thatcher. The Reagan Administration were very anxious to bless this arrangement. They owed the Saudis various favours. They were supporting the Nicaraguan Contras and helping gallant freedom fighters in Afghanistan—such as Osama bin Laden. Reagan was perfectly happy to support this British arrangement, which proved to be one of the largest arms deals in history. It has been worth about £40 billion to date, and could be worth something of the same magnitude again in the future. It is not merely an arms deal, but one of extraordinary complexity that involves two major subsidiary features. One is an offset agreement, which, essentially, is a joint venture set of arrangements under which British companies put in capital and expertise, and their Saudi partners take their cut. There is also an oil element. There was an oil barter arrangement whereby oil was marketed, initially by Shell and BP, and the proceeds were routed through the MOD to BAE Systems.”
Al Yamamah 2 Offset Agreement THE AL YAMAMAH ECONOMIC OFFSET PROGRAMME
This Saudi British Bank document contains a reference to the original “Al Yamamah” agreement involving Saudi Arabia, BAE Systems, the UK Ministry of Defence (the MOD), with Shell and BP fulfilling what has been described as a money laundering role in the “oil-for-arms” deal:
“The Al Yamamah Project was initiated in September 1985. It involves the supply and support of Tornado, Hawk and PC-9 aircraft and specialised naval vessels to Saudi Arabia. The UK Government’s prime contractor for the project is BAE Systems pIc. The related Al Yamamah Economic Offset Programme was launched in 1989.”
The main parties are once again Saudi Arabia, BAE Systems and the MoD. The main “Key” address for “The British Offset Office” stated in the document is the Ministry of Defence in London. Shell is also involved, this time via a subsidiary:
“The foreign partner is Basell, who is the world’s largest PP manufacturer and is itself a 50/50 joint venture between Royal Dutch/Shell Group and BASF. Basell will hold 25% of the equity in the Saudi Arabian venture.”
House of Commons Select Committee on International Development: September 2000
21. The allegations continued. In December 1996, Sunday Business suggested that one of the reasons behind the Saudi company Aramco’s replacement of BP and Shell as oil exporters in Al Yamamah was an attempt by the Saudi government to save money on commission payments to the companies, which were estimated at $30 million/£18 million a year. (Sunday Business, 1.12.96)
Declassified UK Government documents relating to Shell role in Al-Yamamah “oil-for-arms” project (all confidential/secret/restricted documents):
UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) document “SALE OF AIRCRAFT TO SAUDI ARABIA). Includes written confirmation from Minister of Defence Michael Heseltine to “His Royal Highness Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz” of terms for the BAe military planes-for-oil deal:
EXTRACT
“Following acceptance by the British Government of payment by means of an oil trading scheme, preliminary discussions have been held with the British Oil Companies, BP and Shell. These two companies are prepared in principle to handle the oil trading scheme subject to the agreement of satisfactory terms and conditions. They will form a Consortium, to be led by BP. “
UK Department of Trade & Industry Minute headed BRITISH AEROSPACE: SAUDI ARABIAN DEAL
EXTRACT
“All that had so far been agreed was that the aircraft ordered by Saudi Arabia might be paid for entirely in oil, up to an amount of $4 billion. The details now had to be worked out. Mr Knapp’s simplistic view was that if the oil price went down, the Saudi Arabians would have to pump up more to pay for the aircraft. British Aerospace would have to play a role with BP as an agent having an interest in the deal. BAe had already been involved by the Ministry of Defence in the discussions on the oil deal.”
Letter to UK HM Treasury headed “SALE OF TORNADO, HAWK AND PC-9 TO SAUDI ARABIA”.
EXTRACT
“Nor have the Saudis told us yet exactly how the deal is to be financed; the only word on that so far is that the Saudi authorities have told us that it will be paid for entirely in oil. We hope in concert with BP, Shell, BAe and the Department of Energy to thrash this out with the Saudi Petroleum Ministry, Petromin, very shortly. We await a summons to Riyadh.”
From 10 Downing Street (From Charles Powell on behalf of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) to MoD plus MoD Response.
EXTRACT FROM MoD RESPONSE 4 DECEMBER 1985
“Our oil negotiators (from Shell and BP) are ready to resume discussions with the Saudi Ministry of Petroleum as soon as the Saudi Government (which effectively means the King and Prince Sultan) have decided on the way ahead. Prince Sultan told Mr Chandler that he hoped to be able to make an initial cash payment in addition to arrangements for a long-term oil lifting arrangement in our favour.”
MoD letter to Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) headed “SAUDI ARABIA – MILITARY AIRCRAFT FOR OIL”
CONTENT OF LETTER FROM C H HENN, UK MoD Assistant Under Secretary of State Defence Export Services Administration.
“On returning from Saudi Arabia this morning I have seen a copy of your letter of 24 January to Adams.
I ought to put it on record that an agreement was signed yesterday in Riyadh by Yamani and by Shell and BP representatives providing for the lifting of 300,000 barrels//day for an initial period of 3 years. It will then continue year by year unless either party terminates. The 300,000 includes lifting East of Suez. The funds generated will be dedicated to the military aircraft project and Shell/BP stated their intention to carry on lifting so long as the aircraft project requires. There are of necessity review and escape clauses but all concerned are well aware of the need for stable funding and Shell/BP would in practice only terminate in extremis.
I should stress that the existence as well as the terms of this agreement is a matter of some political as well as commercial sensitivity.
I should be glad to expand on the above.”
Department of Trade & Industry Minute
EXTRACTS
“The essence of the agreement is that Shell/BP will lift 300,000 bpd (+ or -10%) over three years, recoverable if payment for Tornado not by then completed (calculations were made on a price of $20pb which seems optimistic).”
“The Saudis have emphasised that they wish these arrangement to remain confidential; in particular there should be no mention of barter. Neither HMG nor BAe would take title to the oil.”
Export Credits Guarantee Department letter from P Henley to R E Adams at HM Treasury
EXTRACTS
“Subsequently Shell and BP entered into 3 year contracts to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis and there are provisions for extending the period as necessary.”
“However, towards the end, the Saudis made it clear that they expected all payments to be made from oil lift arrangements and for this purpose Shell and BP entered into contracts with the Saudis to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis.”
Export Credits Guarantee Department Minute by P Henley headed “£5BN DEFENCE DEAL WITH SAUDI ARABIA”
EXTRACT
“Subsequently Shell and BP entered into 3 year contracts to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis and there are provisions for extending the period as necessary.”
Department of Trade and Industry letter from Minister Paul Channon to Rt Hon Nigel Lawson MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer (copied to the Prime Minister)
EXTRACT
“However, towards the end, the Saudis made it clear that they expected all payments to be made from oil lift arrangements and for this purpose Shell and BP entered into contracts with the Saudis to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis.”
Letter from Peter Walker MP, Secretary of State for Energy, to Rt Hon George Younger MP, Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence
EXTRACT
You will remember that, at the time the MOU was signed last September, I expressed great concern about the impact of the deal on the oil market.
I am still concerned to avoid adding to disruption and instability in the oil market. Given the importance that Saudi production levels have assumed, I have doubts about the wisdom of agreeing to any increase in liftings under the oil side of the aircraft deal. Nor would I want pressure to be put on Shell and BP to accept such an increase against their better judgement.
Letter from MoD Head of Defence Export Services, Colin M Chandler, to HRH Prince Sultan bin Adul Aziz Al Saud, under the heading “PROJECT Al YAMAMAH”
EXTRACTS
“Currently we have approached the British oil companies who have indicated their agreement to increase liftings, subject to terms from 300,000 to approximately barrels a day until the end of March 1987, and as we have agreed today, it is our mutual aim to maintain this level throughout the life of the project. They have also indicated that they will endeavour, given market conditions prevailing, to take larger quantities.”
“(b) Implementation of Increased Oil Liftings
As we agreed today it is necessary for Your Royal Highness to notify the Ministry of Petroleum so that the necessary negotiations can be commenced with the British oil companies Shell and BP as soon as possible.”
Letter from P Henley of ECGD to HM Treasury under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA: DEFENCE DEAL (Tornados) (now called the YAMAMAH PROJECT)
EXTRACT
“ECGD will also have no liability for any default by Shell/BP under the oil net-back arrangements or for the collapse of such arrangements.”
Department of Trade and Industry letter from Minister Paul Channon to Rt Hon Nigel Lawson MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer (copied to the Prime Minister)
EXTRACT
“In the event of a collapse of the oil arrangements between Shell/BP and Aramco ECGD would only assume liability if within a reasonable period thereafter (say 3 months) the Saudi have failed to institute another method of payment.”
Letter from P Henley of ECGD to HM Treasury under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA – YAMAMAH PROJECT”)
EXTRACT
4. We have already told BIS that we are not prepared to entertain cover against any autonomous default by Shell/BP (or by any subsequent oil-lifters) in honouring the oil-lift agreements or in remitting the proceeds as instructed by the Saudis. In so far as Shell/BP entered into the Oil Agreement at the request of MODUK and BAe, Shell/BP can be said to be acting for the benefit of the latter and, in our view, any cover requirement by BIS in this particular respect should be addressed to them.
Letter from Department of Energy Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Peter Gregson, to Sir Clive Whitmore, MoD.
EXTRACT
3. It is of course not at all clear how the Saudi intend to achieve a price of $18 pb without cutting production. But if they are to make any progress towards a fixed price, they will have to dismantle all their current netback contracts, including those with Shell and BP. The current oil agreement gives Shell and BP some protection against this because it entitles them to a netback deal so long as any other company has one.
Ministry of Defence letter to Department of Energy.
2. You should be aware that on 10 November Colin Chandler , the Head of Defence Export Services, drew the attention of the Saudi Defence Minister, Prince Sultan, once again to the financing needs of the aircraft project. As a result, Prince Sultan said that he would write to the Saudi Oil Minister recommending a continuation of the level of lifting at 400,000 barrels per day, and an extension of the oil agreement for another two years (ie to February 1991). This has yet to lead to an invitation to Shell and BP to visit Saudi Arabia for negotiations, and there is indeed no sign of this yet or of any Saudi pressure on the two companies. But the ball is in the Saudi court.
Letter from G T W Jones of HM Treasury to Peter Henley of ECGD under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA: YAMAMAH PROJECT”
EXTRACT
“4. You attached to your letter a copy of a Department of Energy letter of 25 November, which we had not previously seen. The Department of Energy is concerned that the Saudis might seek to renegotiate the netback contracts with Shell and BP in the context of the Yamamah project. As you know, the Saudis are reported to be in support of reducing output in order to increase the price of oil. This issue is included on the agenda for this week’s OPEC conference.”
Letter from Peter Henley ECGD to T J D Downing at Bank of England under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA; YAMAMAH PROJECT”
EXTRACT
“First concerning delivery of oil. The Oil Agreement provides for oil to be delivered to Shell/BP fob at an Arabian Gulf VLCC port or fob YANBU, making use of the oil pipe-line, or by means of a Saudi vessel to a Shell/BP facility outside Saudi Arabia.”
“If Shell/BP cannot send its ships into the Gulf because of war or a blockade and if oil cannot be delivered at any other port because of pipeline capacity constraints and if KSA were not able to ship the oil to a Shell/BP facility and then failed to pay by other means, ECGD would be liable.
You also raised the question of the difference in meaning between “delivery” and “offer for delivery”. Whilst it is our intention to cover failure by the Saudis to offer oil for delivery and not failure by Shell/BP to take delivery (other than by reason of the force majeure events described above), we have a practical and legal problem in defining “offer for delivery”. We are overcoming this difficulty by talking only about “delivery” (as defined above) but specifically excluding events that we are not prepared to cover (eg default by Shell/BP).”
EXTRACT
“E.
SULTAN ACCEPTED THE NEED FOR A LETTER LINKING THE OIL DEAL TO THE AIRCRAFT PROJECT. WE WILL TABLE A DRAFT ON 6 JANUARY SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM AGREED WITH SHELL AND BP AND WHICH HAS BEEN SEEN BY THE SAUDI MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM.’
nuclear-contamination-cover-up 
