SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

DOWNEY BRAND SEYMOUR Mr. L. S. Turner & ROHWER July lo, 1991 Page 2 b. According to Russell Chapin, in the year 1963, the daily account for reconciliation of storage tank versus pump and cash register sales indicated a significant shortage. This fuel loss was called to the attention of Shell representatives, namely Shell 's District Manager and a dispatcher, whose name Mr. Chapin believes was Volney Andrews. Mr. Chapin recalls that Shell 's District Managers changed so rapidly at that time that he cannot remember who was in charge during the incident. Mr. Chapin states that he cannot find any documen- tation concerning Shell 's reimbursement of the lost gaso- line. Mr. Chapin remembers that after initially informing Shell of the significant fuel shortage, Shell 's response was that he had made a mistake in his calculations. After re- calculating the figures and finding them correct, and after continuing to monitor a shortage over the next few weeks, he again advised Shell of an apparent leak. After some discus- sion with Shell employees, Shell suggested the loss could be due to a tank leak and they wanted the opportunity to moni- tor the shortage themselves. After several days of review, Shell representatives were unable to agree that the loss of product was occurring. Several days after that, Chapin Bros. received a delivery of fuel and a loss again occurred. Chapin Bros. promptly telephoned Shell and complained of the loss of fuel and Shell representatives indicated that they needed time to reevaluate the problem. However, Shell representatives stated that the loss was probably caused by a shortage of tank delivery due to their driver selling gas to another station in a covert manner. Several days later, Shell representatives arrived at the station and commenced a loss check. Chapin Bros. advised the representatives verbally and later in a letter addressed to Shell that Chapin Bros. was holding Shell responsible for any loss and demanded full restitution. After several days of monitoring the tank, Shell representa- tives agreed that a leak was occurring. The leak was locat- ed in the upper portion of the storage tank and was, there- fore, not apparent once the product level dropped below that point. Ultimately, Shell delivered an amount of gasoline to replace the agreed upon amount of product lost during the extended time period during which the leakage occurred. Chapin Bros. was not billed for this amount and the records are no longer available.