News Feeds

In our latest, we talk with investigative journalist Eli Clifton about the Israeli lobby and U.S. foreign policy. Listen in: Guest Bio// Eli Clifton is cofounder and senior advisor at…

Shell Spying, Corporate Intelligence and Security: Documentary Chronology

Four of the most important emails.

1. 24 June 1998 — Richard Wiseman admits the Shell connection to Christopher Phillips.
This moves the story beyond pure allegation.
Read the document

2. 9 July 1998 — Wiseman: “The activities of Mr Phillips have, of course, been admitted.”
A particularly clear contemporaneous formulation. (johndonovan.website)
Read the document

3. 21 March 2007 — Shell’s global monitoring email.
The strongest evidence that Shell later monitored global internal email and website traffic in an effort to identify sources communicating with Donovan. (shellnews.net)
Read the Shell internal email

4. The 2004 Hakluyt/Church of England document bundle.
This provides the personnel links, Hakluyt correspondence and the extraordinary Church of England episode in one place. (shellnews.net)

Shell–Hakluyt master document archive The following chronology brings together correspondence, internal Shell emails, police material, Hakluyt-related documents, Church of England correspondence and later US litigation involving Shell corporate-security personnel.

A critical distinction should be maintained throughout:

Documented: Shell and its lawyers acknowledged the use of Christopher Phillips for enquiries on Shell’s behalf; later Shell internal emails record monitoring of communications and web traffic in an effort to identify internal sources supplying information to the Donovan websites. (johndonovan.website)

Documented connection: senior Shell figures Sir Peter Holmes and Sir William Purves simultaneously held roles connected with Hakluyt during the relevant era, and the 2004 correspondence directly engaged Hakluyt over whether it had any role in the Donovan surveillance allegations. Hakluyt declined to identify its clients or activities. (johndonovan.website)

Not established by the presently available documents: that Hakluyt itself carried out the Christopher Phillips operation, burglaries, threats or every other alleged covert operation against the Donovans.

1997 — senior Shell management kept informed 28 April / 14 May 1997 — Richard Wiseman correspondence

Shell UK Legal Director Richard Wiseman’s correspondence records that senior Shell figures were being kept informed about the Donovan dispute, including figures at Shell UK and Shell Transport. This predates the most intense 1998 undercover episode and is useful for establishing the level at which the dispute was already known inside Shell. (shellnews.net)

Richard Wiseman correspondence index — including 28 April and 14 May 1997 letters

Why it matters: the later surveillance controversy cannot readily be characterised as a dispute known only to junior lawyers or local Shell staff.

1998 — the undercover-investigator sequence

This is the strongest contemporaneous documentary bundle because Shell and its solicitors ultimately acknowledged that Christopher Phillips had been conducting enquiries on Shell’s behalf. The archive also records other alleged undercover contacts, including men presenting themselves as journalists, but Shell denied involvement in the wider intimidation allegations. (johndonovan.website)

9 June 1998 — John Donovan to The European

Written after concerns arose about a purported journalist. It begins the documentary trail concerning persons approaching Donovan witnesses or representatives while claiming media credentials. (johndonovan.website)

1998 correspondence master page — Chapter 5

11 June 1998 — The European responds

The newspaper confirmed concerns about the use of its name by an individual who was not acting for it in the manner represented. This provided contemporaneous independent corroboration that at least one purported journalistic approach was irregular. (johndonovan.website)

Chapter 5 — full correspondence sequence

15 June 1998 — John Donovan to Dr Chris Fay, Shell UK Chairman and CEO

This is one of the most useful early documents. Donovan set out the activities of Charles Hoots, Christopher Phillips, “Daniel Wilson” and an anonymous caller, and alerted senior Shell management to concerns about intimidation and covert enquiries. The letter records the allegations contemporaneously rather than retrospectively.

15 June 1998 letter to Dr Chris Fay

16 June 1998 — DJ Freeman replies on Shell’s behalf

Shell’s solicitors responded to the letter to Dr Fay. At this stage the full Phillips connection had not yet been acknowledged.

DJ Freeman letter, 16 June 1998

18 June 1998 — Royds solicitors to DJ Freeman

This correspondence enclosed enquiries made to Cofton Consultants and pressed Shell’s lawyers about Christopher Phillips. It was part of the sequence that forced the issue into the open.

Royds to DJ Freeman, 18 June 1998

18 June 1998 — John Donovan to Colin Joseph, DJ Freeman

A further direct challenge concerning the investigative activity.

John Donovan to DJ Freeman, 18 June 1998

19–23 June 1998 — solicitor-to-solicitor correspondence

This sequence is significant because Shell’s legal representatives progressively disclosed the nature of Phillips’s role. Chapter 5 preserves the related correspondence in chronological context. (johndonovan.website)

Full 1998 correspondence chronology

23 June 1998 — John Donovan to Shell Group Chairman Mark Moody-Stuart

The controversy was escalated directly to the head of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.

Letter to Mark Moody-Stuart, 23 June 1998

23 June 1998 — John Donovan to Richard Wiseman

This is particularly important because Donovan specifically asked whether Phillips had engaged in surveillance or telephone tapping.

Letter to Richard Wiseman, 23 June 1998

24 June 1998 — DJ Freeman to Royds

Shell’s solicitors described the inquiries into companies associated with Donovan as legitimate financial/credit enquiries.

DJ Freeman to Royds, 24 June 1998

24 June 1998 — Richard Wiseman to John Donovan

A key document. Wiseman confirmed the Shell connection to Phillips but did not answer Donovan’s specific question about whether Phillips’s instructions extended to surveillance or phone tapping. (johndonovan.website)

Richard Wiseman letter, 24 June 1998

25 June 1998 — Royds to DJ Freeman

Donovan’s solicitors characterised Phillips’s dealings with the business-centre receptionist as involving deception. (johndonovan.website)

Royds letter, 25 June 1998

26 June 1998 — Turner Enquiry Services

Private investigators retained by the Donovan side reported on enquiries concerning Phillips and Cofton Consultants. This helps show that the matter was being independently investigated at the time. (shellnews.net)

Master document index containing the Turner correspondence

29 June 1998 — report to Suffolk Police

The Donovan side reported the alleged threats, deceptive approaches and undercover activity to the police. This is important evidence that the accusations were formally raised contemporaneously rather than invented after the litigation. (shellnews.net)

1998 documentary index, including the police correspondence

1 July 1998 — Richard Wiseman to John Donovan

Wiseman wrote that he could find no Shell-company knowledge of Charles Hoots. The letter is useful because it distinguishes Shell’s admitted connection to Phillips from its denial of knowledge concerning other alleged operatives. (johndonovan.website)

Wiseman letter, 1 July 1998

3 July 1998 — DJ Freeman to John Donovan

This is among the strongest documents in the bundle. Shell’s solicitors said that if police wanted information from Shell or anyone involved in enquiries on Shell’s behalf, including Mr Phillips, full cooperation would be given. The wording also indicates that Phillips was not necessarily the only person conducting enquiries. (johndonovan.website)

DJ Freeman letter, 3 July 1998

9 July 1998 — Richard Wiseman to John Donovan

Wiseman expressly stated that Shell and its lawyers denied involvement in the alleged intimidation, while adding that “the activities of Mr Phillips have, of course, been admitted.” (johndonovan.website)

Wiseman letter, 9 July 1998

7 and 11 August 1998 — further DJ Freeman correspondence

These letters form part of the continued dispute about the undercover activity. The 11 August document is cited in the archive as confirmation that Shell had conducted an internal investigation into the matter. (johndonovan.website)

DJ Freeman, 7 August 1998

DJ Freeman, 11 August 1998

16 October 1998 — Suffolk Police

Police correspondence concerning one of the burglary allegations. Shell denied involvement in the burglaries and intimidation allegations.

Suffolk Police letter, 16 October 1998

26 October 1998 — Shell solicitors

The archive records this correspondence as further confirmation that an internal Shell investigation into the undercover controversy had taken place. (johndonovan.website)

DJ Freeman/Shell correspondence archive

2004 — Hakluyt and the Church of England

This strand began when the Donovan family later discovered the extensive overlap between senior Shell figures and Hakluyt, the private intelligence consultancy founded by former intelligence officers. The archival documents establish the Shell/Hakluyt personnel overlap and the correspondence with Hakluyt; they do not, by themselves, prove that Hakluyt conducted the Phillips operation. (johndonovan.website)

4–14 April 2004 — discovery of the Shell/Hakluyt connection

The archived sequence includes correspondence with Shell lawyers and senior Shell figures after the Hakluyt links were discovered. A 5 April letter discusses Charles Hoots and raises expressly the possibility of intelligence connections. Those were allegations by Alfred Donovan, not established findings. (shellnews.net)

April–June 2004 Hakluyt correspondence index

22 April 2004 — Alfred Donovan / Richard Wiseman emails

This exchange revisited Shell’s prior admission concerning investigative activity. It forms the bridge between the 1998 Phillips documents and the later Hakluyt inquiry. (shellnews.net)

Dark Side of Royal Dutch Shell — full correspondence index

26 April 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Richard Wiseman

Follow-up correspondence recording Donovan’s interpretation of Wiseman’s response and the earlier admissions. (johndonovan.website)

Don Marketing archival correspondence

26/27 May 2004 — email to hundreds of MPs

Subject: “HAKLUYT — THE COMMERCIAL ARM OF MI6?”

This circulated the Shell/Hakluyt issue widely among MPs and sought investigation of the connection between Shell and the intelligence consultancy. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Shell/Hakluyt master correspondence page

2 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Hakluyt

A direct request to Hakluyt co-founder Christopher James asking whether Hakluyt had been involved in the Shell-related activities against the Donovans. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Hakluyt correspondence index

2 June 2004 — Intelligence and Security Committee

The ISC acknowledged Donovan’s concerns about Hakluyt and stated that they would be drawn to the attention of committee members. (shellnews.net)

ISC letter, 2 June 2004

3 June 2004 — Church of England Legal Office

This is the extraordinary document in the Church of England strand.

Mike Webster of the Church’s Legal Office contacted Alfred Donovan after the letter intended for Hakluyt appeared on a Church of England fax machine. The eventual explanation centred on Sir Anthony Hammond QC, who had relevant Church legal responsibilities while also being connected with Hakluyt. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Shell/Hakluyt/Church of England correspondence index

4 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to the Intelligence and Security Committee

This letter is particularly useful because it sets out, contemporaneously, why the unexpected Church of England involvement increased Donovan’s concerns. It also recounts the allegations about Hoots and the wider intelligence context. (shellnews.net)

Letter to Intelligence and Security Committee, 4 June 2004

7 June 2004 — Hakluyt correspondence

Hakluyt directly communicated with Alfred Donovan. The fact of communication is established; its significance should not be overstated. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Hakluyt master correspondence page

7 June 2004 — Church of England Legal Office follow-up

A second Church legal-office communication followed, clarifying aspects of the unusual routing of the Hakluyt correspondence. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Church of England/Hakluyt correspondence archive

7 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Sir Mark Moody-Stuart

The Hakluyt matter was raised directly with the former Shell Group chairman. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Complete Shell/Hakluyt document list

7 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Queen Elizabeth II

The letter was sent because the Queen was Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It raised Sir Anthony Hammond’s simultaneous Church and Hakluyt connections. These were Donovan’s allegations and concerns, not findings by the Palace. (shellnews.net)

Letter to Queen Elizabeth II, 7 June 2004

8 June 2004 — Christopher James / Hakluyt response

This may be the single most important Hakluyt document.

Christopher James said it was not Hakluyt’s practice to comment on activities undertaken for clients or even whether Hakluyt had acted for a particular client. Consequently, the letter did not give Donovan the categorical denial he had requested. It should not, however, be treated as an admission of involvement. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Hakluyt response and contemporary reproduction

8 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan replies to Hakluyt

Donovan argued that Hakluyt’s reply remained ambiguous and again invited a direct denial of involvement. (shellnews.net)

Alfred Donovan reply to Hakluyt, 8 June 2004

14 June 2004 — Buckingham Palace

The Queen’s office acknowledged the letter, noted its contents and explained that the Queen would not intervene in the Church’s day-to-day administration. (shellnews.net)

Buckingham Palace letter, 14 June 2004

22 June 2004 — Lambeth Palace

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s office acknowledged the material and said its contents had been carefully noted. (shellnews.net)

Church of England letter, 22 June 2004

2007 — Shell’s own internal surveillance emails

This is arguably the strongest documentary strand because the material consists of Shell’s own internal communications, later disclosed through data-protection procedures. (johndonovan.website)

9 March 2007 — countermeasures / “round table” working group

An internal Shell email discussed a broader response to Donovan activities. The surviving archive describes this as a countermeasures structure and connects it with multiple corporate functions. (shellnews.net)

Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell — documentary compilation

11 March 2007 — internal email about Alfred and John Donovan

An internal writer referred to hopes that Alfred Donovan’s advancing age might reduce his campaigning activity but observed that John Donovan appeared equally determined. It is revealing evidence of the degree of internal attention being paid to the family. (shellnews.net)

Shell DPA documentary compilation

March 2007 — Bill O’Reilly / Fox News episode

An email from John Donovan to Fox News about Shell’s dealings involving Iran triggered internal circulation within Shell USA and Shell International. Internal personnel prepared for the possibility that Fox might contact the company. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

19 March 2007 — “sources in the USG and in London”

This is particularly significant.

A Shell internal writer stated:

“I have contacted some of my sources in the USG and in London…”

The context was an effort to obtain additional information about Alfred and John Donovan following the Fox News email. “USG” naturally reads as United States Government, but the email does not identify the individuals or agencies contacted, or establish that any government information was actually supplied. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Detailed US/Donovan security analysis and internal-email chronology

20 March 2007 — “information security tasking”

Another Shell internal email concluded that the Donovans were “of no security interest” unless Shell wished to undertake an information-security exercise to find where their well-placed Shell sources were located. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

This is an important distinction: Shell’s concern, according to its own correspondence, was not primarily a physical-security threat but information leakage.

Chapter 12: Shell corporate espionage in more recent years

21 March 2007 — global monitoring operation

Perhaps the clearest internal surveillance document.

The confidential email states that Shell had initiated an IT project:

• to monitor internal emails from Shell servers globally to Donovan; and
• to monitor web traffic to identify internal visits to the Donovan website.

The email also refers to suspicions that current and former employees were communicating with the Donovans. (shellnews.net)

Shell internal email, 21 March 2007 — “Donavan CONFIDENTIAL”

22 March 2007 — Shell USA communications posture

A Shell internal communication states that the US side should be distanced from the underlying UK dispute and provides a controlled response for use if contacted. (shellnews.net)

Shell internal email, 22 March 2007

31 August 2007 — continuing monitoring

Later internal Shell correspondence recorded continued monitoring of the Donovan website and stated that employees had been instructed not to visit it. (shellnews.net)

DPA/Shell surveillance compilation

2009–2011 — Corporate Affairs Security and Hakluyt crossover 17 June 2009 — CAS and NCFTA

Later disclosed internal correspondence referred to CAS and the National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, with “high level interest” in material being published on blogs. The identities and full purpose are obscured by redactions, so conclusions should be cautious. (shellnews.net)

Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell compilation

2010/2011 — Ian Forbes McCredie: Shell to Hakluyt

Ian Forbes McCredie, formerly Vice President of Corporate Security at Shell and an ex-intelligence officer, subsequently became associated with Hakluyt. The Donovan archive records that an email sent to his old Shell address produced a response from his Hakluyt email address. (johndonovan.website)

Chapter 5 — McCredie, Shell Corporate Security and Hakluyt background

This is strong evidence of the personnel crossover between Shell security and Hakluyt. It is not proof that McCredie or Hakluyt conducted the 1998 operation.

United States: Shell security litigation and insider material Crockett Oaks III — former FBI agent and Shell US security chief

Oaks headed Shell’s US security function. In 2017 Shell sought court intervention after alleging that he threatened to disclose confidential material concerning internal investigations. Legal reporting described his remit as including threats to Shell’s employees, property and reputation. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

That last category is particularly relevant to the wider spying issue because treating reputation as a security concern creates obvious questions about where conventional security ends and intelligence-gathering concerning critics begins.

Shell Spying in America — Oaks and other US litigation

The underlying litigation is important, but it should not be described as proving unlawful spying. What it establishes is the existence and sensitivity of Shell’s internal corporate-investigation machinery. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Michael Oliveri v Shell Oil Company

Court filings described the Security Advisor US position and Shell’s security reporting hierarchy: Crockett Oaks was identified as Regional Security Manager for the Americas, reporting upwards to James W.D. Hall at Shell’s global headquarters in The Hague. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

This is valuable because it documents a transatlantic command structure linking US security operations to central Shell management.

US security litigation master article, including Oliveri court-document links

Walied Shater litigation

Shater’s litigation exposed additional details about Shell Corporate Security, overseas assignments, repatriation, CCTV evidence, Shell’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer and its Business Integrity Department. Shater ultimately lost his Fifth Circuit appeal, which should be stated clearly. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

The case nevertheless provides independent court documentation concerning the internal structure and workings of Shell security.

Romak and Taylor v Shell — 2025 security reorganisation litigation

Michelle Romak and Kevin Taylor sued Shell USA Inc., Shell plc and Wayne Hunt over a restructuring of the corporate-security function. Those allegations remain allegations unless and until established in court. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Its relevance here is institutional rather than evidential: it provides another public court record involving the management of Shell’s US security organisation.

The confidential US insider

This should be handled particularly carefully.

My own published account records that information was supplied through ProtonMail by a person with knowledge of a severe internal falling-out among individuals associated with Shell security in the United States. Some of the supplied material included court documents, while other claims concerning identifiable individuals remain unpublished and untested. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

I would describe it in exactly those terms:

“A confidential source with apparent knowledge of Shell’s US security operation supplied Donovan with information and court material concerning internal disputes. Some of the source material could be cross-checked against public litigation; other allegations have not been published because they remain uncorroborated.”

The public litigation does not prove the confidential source’s more serious claims. But, as the existing article fairly observes, it supplies an independently verifiable institutional backdrop: Shell security personnel have indeed appeared repeatedly in litigation involving investigations, confidentiality, employment disputes and internal security management. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Why the US material makes the story more significant

The US litigation does not demonstrate a single continuous international spying conspiracy.

What it does demonstrate is that Shell operated a sophisticated international corporate-security structure extending from Houston into its global hierarchy; that former law-enforcement and intelligence personnel occupied senior security roles; that sensitive internal investigations repeatedly became the subject of litigation; and that Shell itself treated reputation as one of the interests within its security remit. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Put beside the British record—the Phillips admission, the Hakluyt personnel overlap, the later Shell global email monitoring and the US-government-source reference—the result is a much more substantial investigative question:

How did Shell define the boundary between legitimate corporate security and intelligence-gathering directed at critics, whistleblowers, employees and other sources of reputational risk?

I intend to include the above information in The Shell Leaks Files.

Shell Spying, Corporate Intelligence and Security: Documentary Chronology was first posted on September 14, 2026 at 11:23 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

CALIFORNIA (September 14, 2026) — The National Audubon Society proudly announces five California ranches that have earned its Bird-Friendly Land Certification, which recognizes their efforts to...

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 14 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-057 The Sakhalin Papers XLVII: The Feeding Ground Was Losing Its Food — WGWAP’s 2019 Benthos Alarm For fifteen years, oil companies operating off north-eastern Sakhalin financed a programme that measured the tiny bottom-dwelling animals on which gray whales depended. Then something changed. Amphipod biomass in the nearshore Piltun feeding ground began falling sharply in 2013 and reached the lowest level in the entire monitoring series in 2016. That same year, the industry-sponsored benthic programme ended. Three years later, the independent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel issued an unusually stark public warning: the whales’ traditional nearshore feeding ground might be losing the capacity to support them.

1. The problem was beneath the whales

Much of the Sakhalin controversy had been visible above or within the water column.

Platforms.

Pipelines.

Ships.

Dredging.

Seismic airguns.

Fishing nets.

But the next warning came from the seabed.

Gray whales are benthic feeders. Off Sakhalin, they descend to the seafloor and consume large quantities of small invertebrates living in or immediately above the sediment.

In the shallow nearshore feeding area around Piltun Lagoon, one of the principal prey species was the amphipod Monoporeia affinis.

Farther offshore, another amphipod, Ampelisca eschrichtii, was particularly important.

The difference would eventually matter enormously because the nearshore and offshore feeding grounds were not interchangeable for every whale.

Young calves and dependent mother-calf pairs relied especially heavily upon the shallow Piltun habitat.

2. Fifteen years of industry-financed seabed monitoring

Between 2002 and 2016, Sakhalin Energy Investment Company and Exxon Neftegas Limited jointly supported an annual benthic sampling programme.

Its purpose was straightforward but scientifically important:

to measure the distribution, composition and biomass of gray-whale prey in both the nearshore and offshore feeding areas.

The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel later acknowledged imperfections in the programme. Sampling locations and timing varied between years.

Nevertheless, WGWAP considered the resulting 15-year dataset to possess considerable scientific value. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

That point deserves emphasis.

The evidence underlying the later warning did not originate with environmental campaigners attempting to reconstruct conditions from outside the project.

Much of it came from research financed by the oil companies themselves.

3. The decline began in 2013

The long-term dataset began showing something troubling.

According to WGWAP’s formal Open Statement of Concern dated 11 July 2019, amphipod biomass in the nearshore feeding ground began declining in 2013.

By 2016, it had reached the lowest level recorded during the entire 15-year time series.

Offshore conditions were different.

Amphipod biomass there remained high through 2016. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

The distinction between the two habitats began to offer a possible explanation for another observation.

The whales themselves appeared to be redistributing.

Increasing numbers were using the richer offshore feeding ground.

Fewer were remaining in the traditional Piltun nearshore area.

4. Then the monitoring stopped

This is the central documentary fact in the present file.

After the 2016 season, the companies discontinued the benthic monitoring programme.

WGWAP stated in July 2019 that no new data had been collected under that programme since then.

The Panel also recorded that it had repeatedly expressed disappointment over the decision because the available evidence was already showing a sharp reduction in nearshore amphipod biomass.

The timing was therefore remarkable.

A monitoring programme had produced a warning signal.

The signal was worsening.

Then the monitoring ceased.

That sequence is established.

What it does not establish is that Sakhalin Energy stopped monitoring because it wished to conceal the decline.

The documents reviewed for this instalment do not demonstrate such a motive.

The evidentially safe conclusion is narrower:

the programme ended at precisely the time when the long-term dataset was showing its most concerning nearshore result.

5. The whales appeared to be moving too

The prey decline was accompanied by changes in whale distribution.

WGWAP’s July 2019 statement recorded two developments occurring in parallel with the loss of nearshore amphipod biomass:

a continued reduction in the number of whales using the nearshore feeding area;

and a noticeable southward shift in their distribution.

The Panel said the combined pattern raised the possibility that waters immediately outside Piltun Lagoon were gradually being abandoned and could cease to function as a viable feeding ground.

That was not presented as a proven prediction.

It was a scientific warning.

And WGWAP described the matter as urgent.

6. Why mothers and calves made the warning more serious

The offshore feeding area offered abundant prey.

So why not simply allow the whales to move?

Because the observations suggested that not all animals could use the deeper offshore habitat equally.

WGWAP reported that mothers were increasingly seen offshore after weaning their calves.

But calves and yearlings had not been observed there.

That suggested that the youngest animals might not yet be capable of feeding effectively in deeper offshore waters.

The nearshore Piltun habitat was therefore not simply one feeding patch among several.

At the time of the Panel’s statement, it was the only known Sakhalin feeding area where mothers accompanied by dependent calves regularly foraged.

If that habitat became nutritionally inadequate, the biological consequences could fall disproportionately on precisely the animals most important to future population growth.

7. The 2018 numbers intensified the concern

The 20th WGWAP meeting later examined whale-distribution data from 2018.

The figures were striking.

During synchronized nearshore surveys, the average number of whales counted was only six.

The maximum was eight.

WGWAP described eight as the lowest maximum count recorded since this component of the Joint Programme began.

In comparison, a nearly simultaneous September survey estimated 124 whales offshore and only five nearshore.

But the Panel identified an important methodological complication.

The vessel used for offshore surveys in 2018 had a much higher observer platform than the vessel used previously. Observers aboard the new vessel counted substantially more whales during comparative work.

WGWAP therefore warned that raw offshore counts from 2018 should not simply be compared with earlier years without correcting for observational differences.

This is an excellent example of why the source record must be handled carefully.

There was compelling evidence of reduced nearshore use.

But not every apparent numerical increase offshore could safely be treated as a biological increase.

8. WGWAP challenged the industry programme’s reassuring conclusion

The industry-supported 2018 monitoring report concluded that the overall Sakhalin foraging group was relatively stable and generally favourable.

WGWAP did not accept that conclusion.

At its November 2019 meeting, the Panel said the available data did not support such a broad characterization.

It pointed instead to:

the severe reduction in whale abundance in the Piltun nearshore area;

the contraction of whale distribution there;

the apparent correlation with declining prey biomass;

and unresolved methodological problems in the survey data.

The Panel repeated its concern that the declining benthic biomass could eventually produce population-level consequences.

This was therefore more than an argument over presentation.

The company-supported monitoring programme and its independent scientific advisers were drawing materially different conclusions from parts of the same evidence.

9. One scientist used the word “crisis”

The November 2019 WGWAP report records an unusually forceful intervention by Panel member David Weller.

Discussing the very low use of the nearshore feeding ground and the unusually early separation of some mother-calf pairs, he described the nearshore habitat as being, in his opinion, “in a state of crisis.”

His hypothesis was that lactating females might be exhausting their nutritional reserves and moving offshore earlier in the season to find better feeding, leaving newly independent calves behind in the shallower habitat.

If correct, such a process could affect calf survival and maternal reproductive intervals.

WGWAP did not present this hypothesis as established fact.

It explicitly treated follow-up survival and reproductive monitoring as necessary.

That distinction is vital.

A serious scientific hypothesis entered the record.

It was not a proven causal finding.

10. A peer-reviewed paper pointed strongly towards natural oceanographic drivers

There was another reason not to leap from declining prey biomass to an accusation against Shell.

In February 2019, researchers published a peer-reviewed analysis in Marine Environmental Research examining prey biomass around north-eastern Sakhalin between 2001 and 2015.

The study investigated relationships between benthic prey and water depth, year, climatic indices and oceanographic processes.

Its overall conclusion was that temporal changes in prey biomass appeared to reflect climatic and oceanographic factorsdriving broader ecosystem change across the Sea of Okhotsk and Pacific Arctic region. (PubMed)

That study is significant because it provides a credible natural explanation.

Indeed, WGWAP expressly cited it when discussing possible causes of the decline.

The scientists were not approaching the question from the premise that oil and gas activity must necessarily be responsible.

11. But WGWAP would not rule industrial disturbance out

The Panel’s position was deliberately more cautious.

In its July 2019 statement, WGWAP said the cause of the amphipod decline remained undetermined.

It explicitly acknowledged that natural changes in the ecosystem might be entirely responsible.

But it added that disturbance associated with more than two decades of exploration, infrastructure development and oil and gas production in the region could not yet be excluded as having played some role.

That wording is central to this instalment.

The Panel did not find:

Shell caused the prey decline.

Nor did it find:

oil and gas activity had nothing to do with it.

Its position was:

the cause had not been determined, several hypotheses remained plausible, and the missing monitoring data made the question harder to answer.

12. The solution proposed by the scientists was more data

WGWAP called for renewed investigation.

It said the nature and causes of the amphipod decline should be examined in much greater depth.

Multiple hypotheses should be tested.

And most importantly, regular benthic sampling should restart so scientists could determine whether the decline observed through 2016 had continued.

This was not a demand for an immediate finding of corporate liability.

It was a demand for evidence.

The distinction matters.

The scientific response to uncertainty was not to invent certainty.

It was to restore the measurement programme.

13. The public warning became contemporaneous news

IUCN issued a public report on 11 July 2019, the same day as WGWAP’s Statement of Concern.

Its headline was explicit:

“IUCN scientific panel calls for investigation of decline in prey of western gray whales.”

IUCN reported that the Panel feared waters immediately outside Piltun Lagoon might be losing their ability to support recovery of the endangered whales.

It noted the steep fall in amphipod biomass, the termination of the long-term monitoring programme in 2016 and the contemporaneous shift in whale distribution away from the nearshore feeding area. (IUCN)

The warning was therefore public at the time.

It is not a concern reconstructed retrospectively from private material.

14. Shell’s own 2019 Sustainability Report

There is an important authenticated Shell record from the same year.

Royal Dutch Shell plc’s Sustainability Report 2019 described IUCN as a long-standing environmental partner and specifically referred to the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel.

Shell stated that in 2019 WGWAP had received a new three-year mandate to advise Sakhalin Energy on assessing and managing its impact on western gray whales.

The report identified Shell’s interest in Sakhalin Energy as 27.5% minus one share. (Shell)

That corporate statement confirms something important about responsibility for the advisory process.

WGWAP was not an external protest group attempting to impose itself on Shell.

It was part of an independent scientific mechanism that Sakhalin Energy had formally agreed to use.

Consequently, when WGWAP issued a public warning about the disappearing prey base, it was the company’s own independent scientific advisory structure speaking.

15. And yet benthic monitoring was still not scheduled to resume

At the November 2019 WGWAP meeting, Sakhalin Energy representatives discussed plans for 2020.

The company was seriously considering restarting annual acoustic monitoring.

But the representative confirmed that a resumption of the benthic component of the Joint Programme was not planned for 2020.

WGWAP again stressed the importance of benthic monitoring.

It was encouraged to learn that Exxon Neftegas and Gazpromneft-Sakhalin had collected environmental or benthic information independently and expressed hope that those data could extend the amphipod time series beyond the discontinued Joint Programme.

By that stage, therefore, the central problem was no longer merely that sampling had stopped.

It was that an independent scientific panel had publicly called for its resumption and regular benthic monitoring still had not been restored through the Joint Programme.

16. The High Court record remains background, not proof

As with earlier Sakhalin files, the English High Court litigation provides historical context.

In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting considered access to government environmental information relating to proposed British export-credit support for Sakhalin II.

The judgment records the scale of the project, the approximately US$650 million financing request and the environmental controversy surrounding western gray-whale habitat. (vLex)

But the limits of the judgment must remain explicit.

The High Court did not examine the 2013–2016 amphipod decline.

It did not consider the termination of the benthic programme.

It did not determine the cause of changing prey biomass.

It did not adjudicate the July 2019 WGWAP warning.

The case belongs here only because it establishes the longer history of governmental and judicial scrutiny surrounding environmental information about Sakhalin II.

Documentary Findings

The record establishes that Sakhalin Energy and Exxon Neftegas jointly supported annual benthic monitoring from 2002 through 2016 and that the resulting dataset was considered scientifically valuable by WGWAP. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

It establishes that nearshore amphipod biomass began declining in 2013 and reached its lowest recorded level in the 15-year series in 2016, while offshore amphipod biomass remained comparatively high.

It establishes that the industry-sponsored benthic programme was discontinued after 2016 and that WGWAP repeatedly objected to the loss of sampling.

It establishes that declining prey biomass coincided with reduced use and contraction of whale distribution in the Piltun nearshore feeding area. The documents describe that relationship as a correlation and concern; they do not establish a single proven causal chain.

It establishes that WGWAP regarded the loss of the nearshore habitat as especially concerning because mothers with dependent calves relied upon it and calves had not been observed feeding in the deeper offshore area.

It establishes that a 2019 peer-reviewed study found strong evidence that climatic and oceanographic processes influenced long-term prey variability. (PubMed)

And it establishes that WGWAP regarded the ultimate cause of the nearshore prey decline as unresolved: natural ecosystem processes might fully explain it, while some contribution from long-term industrial disturbance could not be excluded.

Commentary

The most striking feature of this episode is not that scientists discovered an environmental decline.

Monitoring programmes are supposed to discover changes.

The more troubling feature is what happened next.

For fifteen years, the oil companies financed the collection of evidence about what the whales were eating.

When that evidence showed the nearshore prey base falling sharply, the programme ended.

That does not prove bad faith.

There may have been contractual, scientific, regulatory, financial or programme-design reasons for ending it.

But from the perspective of environmental governance, the consequence was damaging.

The data series stopped at precisely the moment when continuity became most valuable.

Three years later, the independent scientific panel was effectively asking:

Is the decline continuing?

And because sampling had stopped, the answer was:

We do not know.

That is the larger lesson of the Sakhalin archive.

Monitoring is most useful when it produces unwelcome information.

If measurement stops when the trend becomes difficult, the entire rationale for long-term environmental monitoring is weakened.

There is also a second lesson.

This file does not establish that Shell destroyed the Piltun prey base.

The peer-reviewed evidence makes such a claim untenable.

Climate, ocean circulation and ecosystem processes offered credible explanations.

WGWAP itself acknowledged that natural change might be entirely responsible.

But precisely because multiple explanations were plausible, additional sampling was essential.

The scientific dispute was therefore not principally about whether Shell should be blamed.

It was about whether anyone was still collecting enough evidence to find out what was happening.

That question would become even sharper in 2020.

Source Record

The principal primary document is the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel Open Statement of Concern on decline of the amphipod prey base in the nearshore feeding area near Piltun Lagoon, dated 11 July 2019. It records the 2002–2016 monitoring programme, the prey decline beginning in 2013, the 2016 low point, termination of the programme and the Panel’s call for renewed sampling. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

WGWAP Open Statement of Concern — 11 July 2019

The principal contemporaneous public report is IUCN’s “Scientific panel calls for investigation of decline in prey of western gray whales,” 11 July 2019. (IUCN)

IUCN report — 11 July 2019

The principal subsequent Panel record is the Report of the 20th Meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, Moscow, 6–8 November 2019. It records the exceptionally low nearshore counts, WGWAP’s rejection of overly reassuring interpretations, concern about benthic biomass and the absence of plans to restart Joint Programme benthic work in 2020. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

WGWAP 20th Meeting Report — November 2019

The peer-reviewed scientific record is Blanchard et al., “Prey biomass dynamics in gray whale feeding areas adjacent to northeastern Sakhalin (the Sea of Okhotsk), Russia, 2001–2015,” Marine Environmental Research 145 (2019), 123–136. (PubMed)

PubMed record for Blanchard et al. 2019

The authenticated Shell corporate record is Royal Dutch Shell plc Sustainability Report 2019, which confirms the renewed WGWAP mandate and Shell’s then 27.5%-minus-one-share interest in Sakhalin Energy. (Shell)

Royal Dutch Shell plc Sustainability Report 2019

The judicial background remains Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin) and is used solely for historical context concerning transparency and proposed UK financial support for Sakhalin II. (vLex)

Archive disclaimer: The decline in nearshore amphipod biomass is documented. Its cause is not established. WGWAP explicitly acknowledged that natural ecosystem change might be entirely responsible while stating that industrial effects could not be excluded. The termination of benthic monitoring after 2016 is documented; no motive for that decision is attributed without evidence. WGWAP recommendations were independent scientific advice rather than judicial or regulatory findings.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers XLVIII: “A Philosophical Difference” — When Shell’s Scientists and Its Independent Advisers Disagreed About How Much Evidence Was Enough

By November 2020, the missing benthic data had become part of a broader dispute.

WGWAP said the disappearance of seabed monitoring was a major loss because scientists could no longer properly explain why whales were abandoning the nearshore feeding ground.

Sakhalin Energy took a different position.

The company maintained that it should not be responsible for collecting benthic information outside the area in which its operations could potentially affect the seabed.

During the meeting, Sakhalin Energy’s HSE leadership acknowledged what the minutes described as a “philosophical difference” between the objectives of conservation scientists and those of an oil company.

The next file examines that unusually candid exchange — and asks a fundamental question at the heart of independent corporate environmental oversight:

Is complying with regulatory requirements the same thing as knowing enough to protect an endangered species?(IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 14 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 14, 2026 at 10:34 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The National Labor Relations Board’s Region 13 Office in Chicago moved to block the originally scheduled Sept. 17 NLRB union election at Saint Francis Hospital in Evanston, Ill., in light of credible allegations that a free and fair election is not possible at this time due to Prime Healthcare’s substantial and flagrant violations of the National Labor Relations Act.

Following the Trump administration’s move to exempt oil projects from environmental review in the Western Arctic, Alaska Wilderness League Arctic Campaign Manager, Katie Umphlett, released the following statement: 

“The Trump administration has made it clear from day one that their priority is catering to industry and not the American public. With this latest move in the Western Arctic, they are essentially letting the oil industry write its own rules. At a time when oil companies and executives are already making record profits, the last thing we should be doing is bending the rules to make it easier to pad their bottom lines at the expense of our public lands, wildlife, and communities.” 

Coal is by far the dirtiest of the world’s major energy sources. It accounts for almost half of the cumulative global carbon emissions since the industrial era began — as much as oil and natural gas combined. And it generates much more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than either oil or gas. Most climate experts agree that phasing out coal power is the single biggest change the world could make to slow down global warming. 

For almost 20 years, the United States has whipsawed on the question of whether the federal government should try to speed up that phaseout. After Barack Obama failed to push a carbon tax through Congress, his administration drafted the “Clean Power Plan,” which would have forced electric utilities to cut their emissions by shifting away from coal. President Donald Trump repealed that rule during his first term, and the Supreme Court later said that the president could not unilaterally force utilities to give up the fuel.

Instead of forcing utilities to abandon coal, the Biden administration tried to work around the Supreme Court ruling in its 2024 rule by giving utilities a choice. They could either retire their coal plants sometime in the 2030s, or they could equip them with new machines that would capture almost all the carbon dioxide that would come out of their smokestacks. The result either way would be a significant drop in carbon emissions from the power sector.

The Trump administration is now repealing that rule. The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Monday that it plans to wipe away all federal regulations for carbon emissions from the electricity sector, essentially allowing utilities to warm the Earth as much as they want. The agency used the same justification as it did in its repeal of climate regulations on motor vehicles earlier this year, arguing that the science of climate change was uncertain and that the repeal would save consumers money on power bills.

“For over 15 years, the Obama and Biden administrations implemented a war on coal to destroy reliable and affordable energy,” said Trump’s EPA chief Lee Zeldin at an international energy summit in Texas. “We are working to go even further so that American energy can be fully unleashed. Realizing the full potential of American energy means more jobs, lower prices, and a more prosperous America.”

This repeal deals a significant blow to the federal government’s efforts to force the power sector away from coal. The whiplash between Democratic and Republican administrations has been so frequent and so severe that neither the Obama nor the Biden rules have done much to speed the decarbonization of the power sector, especially when compared to other federal efforts like the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies for solar and wind.

“The reason to have a target is that it sends a clear signal to decision-makers in companies,” said Kenneth Gillingham, a professor of environmental economics at Yale University and an economic adviser to the Obama administration, where he helped draft the Clean Power Plan. “If you’re on the fence between choosing two things, you might as well choose the one that’s in line with the target. That’s been undermined. There has to be some teeth behind it.”

Even though the Obama and Biden rules never took effect, coal power has still been plummeting in the United States over the past 20 years. That’s thanks to the shale fracking boom, which lowered the cost of natural gas and made it cheap for utilities to replace their coal plants with gas plants. When burned, natural gas does warm the Earth, but slower than coal, and the shift has caused overall power sector emissions to fall in the U.S. by almost half.

The repeal of the Biden rule will likely delay that phaseout and will have significant effects for the nation’s public health. Coal plants also release harmful toxins like mercury and particulate matter, leading to thousands of premature deaths around the world. Inasmuch as the Biden rule would have sped up coal closures, it would also have prevented around $370 billion in health damages from climate change and air pollution. The Biden administration predicted that in 2035, the rule would have prevented hundreds of thousands of asthma flare-ups, hundreds of emergency room visits, and more than 1,200 premature deaths.

The artificial intelligence boom is also slowing the phaseout of coal. The Biden administration drafted its 2024 rule at a time when coal was expected to keep shrinking on its own; the rule projected a “continued decline in projected coal-fired steam generating unit capacity as well as a steady decline in annual operation of those [plants] that remain online,” driven largely by “eroding economic opportunities for coal-fired steam generating units to operate.” Now the rapid growth in power demand from data centers has led to a resurgence in demand for coal plants, and has led many utilities to push out the retirement date for their legacy coal assets. For coal power plants that sell into wholesale markets like the Midwest and the mid-Atlantic, high prices have made it worthwhile to stay online. (The Trump administration has also ordered some coal plants to stay online past their planned retirements, a move that a federal court found to be unlawful earlier this month.)

A case in point is Southern Company, the massive utility that produces energy for states including Georgia and Mississippi. Under the Biden administration, the utility had planned to retire its major Mississippi coal plant by 2028, but Southern announced last year that data centers would necessitate keeping it online well into the 2030s. The company’s previous efforts to install carbon capture at its coal units, meanwhile, have ended in failure. Environmental groups have criticized these decisions and argued that AI demand is inflated, but the Trump administration is happy to give utilities leeway to keep coal online.

The next president who seeks to take action on climate change will face much the same coal challenge that Obama did: how to speed up the phaseout of a fuel that is declining, but not dying? Gillingham argues that the short-term boost provided by Trump and the data center boom may not help rescue the coal fleet. The nation’s coal plants are only getting older, and many utilities will choose to replace them with gas or other fuels rather than repair them. The next president may still need the regulatory “stick,” but by that time the sector may be on its last legs.

“We have more electricity demand than we did before, which is, on the margins, going to make it easier for a coal plant to stay on,” said Gillingham. “But the trend is pretty clear, and you can only fight markets so much.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips4','The process of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that drive climate change, most often by deprioritizing the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in favor of renewable sources of energy.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump topples the last pillar of Biden’s climate agenda on Sep 14, 2026.

This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by Josh Gabbatiss, Daisy Dunne, Molly Lempriere, Dr Simon Evans

Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, has emerged as a major force in UK politics in recent years – pushing anti-net-zero policies, alongside vehement opposition to immigration.

The hard-right populist party is currently mired in a funding controversy and only has a handful of MPs, yet, until recently, it had been leading in national polls for more than a year.

As seen with many similar parties across Europe and beyond, a rejection of climate science is central to Reform’s ideological outlook.

Richard Tice, the party’s deputy leader, is a vocal critic of what he calls “net stupid zero” and has incorrectly blamed “the sun or volcanoes” for human-caused global warming.

As Reform’s energy spokesperson, Tice has also been clear that, if the party were ever to form a national government, it would scrap the UK’s net-zero target, support fossil-fuel expansion and tear up existing contracts for renewable energy.

While less vocal on the subject, Farage has, nevertheless, expressed climate-sceptic views and falsely blamed net-zero policies for the “deindustrialisation of Britain”.

These views draw on long-standing, inaccurate climate-sceptic narratives and are reflected in Reform’s election manifestos, its actions in local government and the opinions of many of its supporters.

Here, Carbon Brief gathers together by topic and factchecks 45 false or misleading claims made by the party’s leadership relating to climate change, renewables and net-zero.

• Climate science

• Net-zero target

• Energy costs

• Oil and gas

• Impacts and adaptation

• Clean energy

Climate science

FALSE

Tice: “There’s no evidence that man-made CO2 is going to change climate change…The Norwegian government’s own equivalent of our ONS [Office of National Statistics] has recently produced a report along the lines of what I’m saying.”

Sky News, February 2025

The world’s authority on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says it is “unequivocal” that humans have warmed the planet, primarily through releasing greenhouse gases.

The IPCC says that, due to human activities, concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) “have increased at rates that have no precedent on centennial timescales in at least the past 800,000 years”.

It adds that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for at least the past two million years.

The report that Tice is referring to is by two independent authors, with Statistics Norway clarifying in 2024 that their views are “not the official stance” of the statistics bureau. (It has also not been formally peer reviewed.)

A factcheck of the Norwegian report by a climate scientist for RealClimate describes it as “misguided” and a “distraction due to errors”.

Another factcheck published by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology found it “contains standard talking-points of climate denial”.

MISLEADING

Tice: “Look, the climate’s always changed for millions of years. And it goes through cycles, long, medium and short.”

Bloomberg, May 2026

Global temperatures are currently around 1.4C hotter than when the industrial era first began in 1850-1900, as shown in the figure below.

The IPCC says that this amount of warming is likely to have made Earth hotter than at any time in about 125,000 years.

Data from NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, Hadley/UEA HadCRUT5, Berkeley Earth, Copernicus ERA5, JRA-3Q, DCENT, and China-MST. Temperature records are aligned over the 1981-2010 period and use the WMO approach to calculate warming relative to pre-industrial levels (1850-1900).

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that approximately 100% of this warming has been caused by humans. 

There are also natural influences that can affect Earth’s climate on shorter timescales, such as El Niño events, volcanic eruptions and small variations in the output of the sun. However, scientists have found that these have only a limited effect on the underlying trend of long-term global warming.

When looking at longer timescales of millions of years or more, Earth has experienced multiple ice ages interspersed with warmer periods.

These changes in climate were triggered by variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun, in combination with subtle fluctuations in the tilt and rotation of the planet, over tens of thousands of years. However, the resulting changes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere also played a role.

This should serve as a “cautionary example”, according to Dr Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and Carbon Brief contributor, “because human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases push the Earth further out of the range of climate conditions that have characterised the past few million years”.

FALSE

Tice: “The idea that you can stop the power of the sun or volcanoes is simply ludicrous.”

BBC Breakfast, June 2024

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans have caused 100% of recent climate change.

Tice’s suggestion that the sun or volcanic eruptions are behind current warming is false.

As the video below explains, the sun and volcanic eruptions have little bearing on the long-term trend of global temperature rise since the Industrial Revolution.

Click here to read the rest

The fracking company Cuadrilla has secured the very time extension to restore its Lancashire shale gas site that councillors refused nine months ago.

Dismantled acoustic fencing at Preston New Road, August 2026. Photo: Maple Independent Media

Unknown to residents and campaigners, Lancashire County Council agreed to extend the deadline to return the Preston New Road site to farmland by six months to 30 June 2027.

In December 2025, this date has been unanimously refused by the council’s planning committee.

It has also emerged that Cuadrilla appealed over other dates enforcing the clean up of the site, near Blackpool.

The developments began three months ago, when Cuadrilla failed to meet an approved timetable for the Preston New Road restoration.

The county council took enforcement action. The enforcement notice required the site to be returned to farmland by January 2027.

But Cuadrilla worked behind the scenes with officials to get agreement on the very extension it had previously applied for and been refused.

The extension has taken residents and campaigners by surprise. The first some local people knew about it was a social media post by a councillor last week.

At the time of writing, there has been no media release from the county council.

Reaction

Nick Danby, of the campaign group, Frack Free Lancashire, said:

“We have just learned that the timetable for the restoration of the Preston New Road fracking site has been extended – yet again. The site was to have been fully restored by next January but now it seems that we might not see this matter resolved until June.

“Cuadrilla have turned dragging their feet into an art form and they have received no sanction whatsoever. Frankly, they have run rings around the regulators and Lancashire County Council and we have absolutely no confidence that they will meet the new timetable nor that they have any intention of doing so. We will be keeping a close eye on developments, if there are any.

“The community has been completely failed. Just as we always predicted. This should have been properly resolved a long time ago and the fact that we are still waiting is completely unacceptable.”

Another opponent of Cuadrilla’s operation, Preston New Road Action Group, said:

“In June we were encouraged by the fact that Lancashire County Council (LCC) had finally taken action to enforce Cuadrilla’s blatant failure to restore the site at Preston New Road. We were looking forward to this blot on the landscape being removed by December 2026.

“It is now very disappointing to find out that, following an appeal by Cuadrilla, LCC have rolled over and given them until June 2027 to restore the site – exactly the extension Cuadrilla applied for in 2025 which was refused by the LCC Development Committee.

“This is another fine example of Cuadrilla playing the LCC planners and getting the upper hand. We can only hope that this really is the final deadline for Cuadrilla.”

DrillOrDrop has been trying to make sense of what happened over the restoration plans, enforcement action, Cuadrilla appeal and the agreement with officials.

Lancashire County Council told us repeatedly that there had been no extension of the final deadline. But this is contradicted by several documents.

Timeline 4 December 2025: Cuadrilla refused more time

Councillors voted by nine to nil, with no abstentions, to refuse Cuadrilla’s request for an extension until 30 June 2027 for the return of Preston New Road to farmland. At the time, officials said:

“The proposed extension of time for the retention of the site in its current form would result in unnecessary and unacceptable harm to the rural character of the area.” Details

Campaigners called for immediate restoration of the site. Details

3 June 2026: original enforcement notice served

Lancashire County Council served an enforcement notice on Cuadrilla over the restoration of Preston New Road. The notice was due to come into force on 8 July 2026 unless there was an appeal against it.

The enforcement notice set three deadlines for the work.

1. “All plant, buildings, security and acoustic fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hard standings forming part of the drilling compound for hydrocarbons shall be removed from the land” This was to be by 8 November 2026, within four months from the date the notice became effective.
2. The upper layers of the subsoil material shall be subsoiled to a depth of 600mm using a heavy duty winged subsoiler prior to the replacement of topsoils to relieve compaction and remove materials injurious to plant life and ay rock, stone or other materials capable of preventing or impeding normal agricultural use or land drainage operations. This was to by 8 December 2026 – within five months
3. Following treatment of the subsoil the topsoil from the soil storage mounds on the Land shall be distributed evenly across the Land to a minimum depth of 150mm and shall then be ripped, cultivated and left in a state that will enable the Land to be brought to a standard fit for agricultural use. This was to be by 8 January 2026 – within six months.

1.0 Enforcement Notice LCC 3.06.26_Redacted(1)Download

8 June 2026: media announcement

Lancashire County Council issued a media release on the enforcement notice. Details

Councillor Joshua Roberts, cabinet member for Rural Affairs, Environment and Communities, said:

“This situation has gone on for far too long.

“Local residents have had to live with this site for longer than they should have, and it is right that we have now taken firm action to bring this to a conclusion.

“It is positive that work is beginning to remove infrastructure from the site, but it is essential that the full restoration is completed within the required timeframe.

“We will not hesitate to take further steps if necessary.”

The media statement repeated the three deadlines in the original enforcement notice.

24 June 2026: Cuadrilla asks for an extension

On 24 June 2026, Cuadrilla confirmed the final deadline of 8 January 2027 in the enforcement notice. But it asked Lancashire County Council to “exercise its discretion” under planning legislation to change the final date to 30 June 2027.

The company also confirmed that 30 June 2027 was the date it had asked for in its planning application, refused in December 2025.

Cuadrilla cited the following reasons for its requested delay:

• The restoration work was “extensive in scope and require careful sequencing”
• The work would be best carried out in April-September, not the winter
• The company could procure contractors on “appropriate terms and enable them to mobilise effectively”
• Working in the winter could cause further harm to the soil structure and agricultural quality of the land
• The company had not appealed against the refusal of planning permission

Cuadrilla proposed to remove the acoustic fencing by 30 September 2026. It also said it would remove concrete structures, drainage materials, the stone platform, fencing, bulk earthworks and the access track by May 2027, subject to weather conditions and availability of contractors.

The company added that it would complete the return of subsoil to a depth of 600mm by May or June 2027 and prepare the site for agricultural use by 30 June 2027.

Cuadrilla described this as a “pragmatic and cooperative approach”.

It would, the company said, “avoid poorer environmental/agricultural outcomes from winter works and allow the Land to be restored properly and in a manner consistent with the Council’s own planning policies and the objectives of the original planning permission”.

2.0 Cuadrilla Letter 2405261_RedactedDownload 30 June 2026: council extends one deadline

Lancashire County Council agreed to extend the deadline to 30 June 2027 for work on the subsoil, topsoil and preparation for farming. But it said plant, buildings, aggregates, pollution control and hard standings must still be removed by 8 November 2026.

3.0 LCC Response on enforcement notice PNR 30.06.26_RedactedDownload 2 July 2026: Cuadrilla threatens appeal

Cuadrilla agreed to the extensions to 30 June 2027 for subsoil, topsoil and agricultural preparation. But it said the 8 November 2026 deadline for buildings, aggregates, pollution control and hard standings was “not achievable once allowance is made for procurement, mobilisation and the practical sequencing of works”.

The company asked for an extension for all site work to 30 June 2027.

It added:

“Unless the Council is able to confirm that amendment, the Company intends to submit an appeal on 3rd July 2026 seeking variation of the compliance period for requirement (i) accordingly.”

4.0 Cuadrilla Letter 0207261_RedactedDownload 3 July 2026: Council replies

Lancashire County Council replied a day later.

It said it had “carefully considered” Cuadrilla’s request for an extension to 30 June 2027 for all works. But it said it could not agree to any further extension or the requested amendment.

It concluded:

“The Enforcement notice will take effect on 8th July 2026 unless an appeal is made against it beforehand”.

6 July 2026: appeal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate informed the council it had received an enforcement appeal from Cuadrilla.

Cuadrilla issued a statement of its appeal case against the council’s 8 November 2026 deadline to remove all plant, buildings, fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hard standings.

It said the company

“considers that compliance should be structured around a single milestone for completion of restoration (30 June 2027), allowing works to be sequenced appropriately within that period. Interim requirements for removal of hard-standing risk forcing work to be undertaken in sub-optimal conditions, contrary to best practice.”

Cuadrilla said the “sequencing of individual work elements should be retained within the control of the restoration programme rather than prescribed through interim compliance milestones.”

Confirmation of the appeal meant the enforcement process was put on hold.

27 August 2026: Withdrawal of appeal

There is no published correspondence between Cuadrilla and Lancashire County Council until a letter dated 27 August 2026. On that date, Cuadrilla said it was withdrawing the appeal with immediate effect.

28 August 2026: Withdrawal confirmed

The Planning Inspectorate confirmed the appeal had been withdrawn.

Why did the council agree to changes?

We asked the council about the reason for the changes to the enforcement notice.

A spokesperson said:

“To be clear, the deadline for the full restoration has not changed, it is still June 2027, as it always was. The only changes are that the acoustic fencing must now be removed by the end of September, and some earthworks can take place outside the winter period as long as everything is completed by June 2027.”

We have shown, confirmed by Cuadrilla and the first enforcement notice, that the final date for site restoration, was originally 8 January 2027.

The council spokesperson said:

“The reason these changes have been agreed is to avoid a situation where Cuadrilla’s appeal continued and all enforcement action is suspended while that appeal is considered.

“If that happened, the Council would be unable to force any restoration work during the appeal, which could potentially delay the restoration beyond June 2027. By agreeing these changes, the Council can continue to enforce the original June 2027 deadline and take further action if the restoration is not completed in full.”

The spokesperson confirmed that there had been no consultation or correspondence with residents.

We asked where we could see the enforcement notice. The spokesperson said:

“The letters have been sent to Cuadrilla and landowners”.

The correspondence is online and has been tracked down, using advanced searches, by a resident. The link is here: https://planningregister.lancashire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/LCC/2026/0025#

DrillOrDrop asked Cuadrilla to comment on the extension. This article will be updated with any response.

Puget Sound Energy is fighting to increase your energy rates and invest in more fossil fuels. Megan Larkin Mon, 09/14/2026 - 12:44 pm

Nearly four and a half years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, July offered fresh evidence of how difficult it remains to disentangle Russia from the Western nuclear industry. Germany approved production of fuel for Russian-designed reactors using Russian technology, while new data from Europe and the United States showed that Rosatom retains a substantial share of Western uranium conversion and enrichment markets.

Meanwhile, at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the killing of the station’s Russian-appointed chief engineer underscored a different consequence of the war: the continuing danger faced by those working at Europe’s largest nuclear power station—

ZNPP chief engineer killed amid continuing military activity

On July 15, Rosatom chief Alexey Likhachev said a drone strike on a service vehicle between the Zaporizhzhia plant and the neighboring city of Enerhodar had killed the station’s Russian-appointed chief engineer, Alexander Yakovlev, and his driver. Russia blamed Ukraine, while Kyiv denied responsibility and said there was no independent confirmation of Moscow’s account.

The incident quickly became the subject of competing claims. A Telegram channel subsequently alleged that Yakovlev had opposed allowing Russian personnel access to Westinghouse nuclear fuel stored at the plant and suggested that a dispute over that access might have contributed to his death. The claim has not been independently established.

Bellona nuclear expert Alexander Nikitin cautions against drawing conclusions from such speculation.

“Both sides (Russia and Ukraine) predictably accused each other of the killing,” Nikitin writes. “Who killed one of the several hundred people who die every day in Ukraine, and what the specific reason for this killing was, will never be established. The reason could have been anything, including domestic, financial or other motives, so there is no point in guessing or trying to investigate it. The war will write everything off.”

For Nikitin, Yakovlev’s death instead illustrates the larger danger created by the continued militarization of the plant and surrounding area. “Not only facilities are being destroyed, but people are also being killed, including personnel working at ZNPP and their families living in Enerhodar,” he writes.

Germany allows VVER fuel production using Russian technology

Germany, meanwhile, has approved a controversial plan that will preserve another form of Russian involvement in Europe’s nuclear industry.

On July 22, authorities in Lower Saxony approved an application by Advanced Nuclear Fuels, a subsidiary of France’s Framatome, to expand its Lingen plant to manufacture hexagonal fuel assemblies for Russian-designed VVER reactors.

The fuel will be manufactured under Russian licenses and using Russian technology through cooperation with Rosatom’s fuel subsidiary TVEL. The decision came despite objections from some 11,000 people and concerns about espionage, sabotage, cyberattacks and Russian access to critical German infrastructure. Authorities imposed safeguards, including restrictions on access by Rosatom and TVEL personnel and security inspections of Russian equipment.

Bellona nuclear expert Dmitry Gorchakov calls the decision “rather strange” and warns that it undermines efforts to reduce European dependence on Russia.

“Unfortunately, this shows the absence of a single clear policy and principles regarding contacts with official Russian structures, both within Germany itself and within the EU,” Gorchakov writes.

More importantly, he argues, allowing Framatome to meet its VVER fuel commitments with Rosatom’s involvement “may slow the development of its own French VVER fuel independent of Rosatom and prolong Rosatom’s dependence and influence on this market in Europe.”

“Bellona does not approve of this decision by the German authorities or of this cooperation between Framatome and Rosatom,” Gorchakov concludes.

Western uranium markets remain dependent on Russia

New figures published in July show why severing those ties remains difficult.

The Euratom Supply Agency reported that European suppliers significantly expanded uranium enrichment services in 2025, increasing their share of the EU market from 63.9% to 72.9%. The volume of Russian enrichment services also increased by 11.6% in physical terms. However, their share of the total volume of European orders declined by 22.55% compared with 23.55% a year earlier and 37% in 2023. Russia supplied nearly 16% of the EU’s natural uranium and 24.4% of its conversion services.

The situation is likewise complicated in the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Russia remained the largest single source of enrichment services purchased by American nuclear operators in 2025, providing 3.284 million SWU — about 26% of the total. That was more than the share supplied by U.S. enrichment capacity itself.

“The published statistics in the EU and the US show the continuing dependence of Western nuclear power plant operators and nuclear fuel cycle enterprises on Russian supplies of uranium and its conversion and enrichment services,” Gorchakov says.

“Despite the existence of major European competitors to Rosatom and technical alternatives, up to 20–25% of nuclear materials and nuclear fuel cycle services in European and US markets still originate in Russia.”

For Gorchakov, market forces alone are unlikely to break that dependence. “Only official restrictions and sanctions can break this trend,” he writes, arguing that firm limits would both force reductions in Russian purchases and give Western suppliers confidence that investments in new capacity will pay off.

Taken together, the developments underline a contradiction that has persisted since the beginning of the war. Russia’s occupation of Zaporizhzhia has created unprecedented nuclear safety risks in Ukraine, yet Rosatom remains deeply embedded in nuclear supply chains in the countries supporting Kyiv. Europe and the United States are developing alternatives, but July’s figures — and Germany’s decision in Lingen — suggest that breaking those ties will require political decisions as much as new technology and production capacity.

The post Russian nuclear ties persist in the West as war claims another life at Zaporizhzhia appeared first on Bellona.org.

EWG statement on UN confirming PFAS contamination is a global human rights crisis Monica Amarelo September 14, 2026

WASHINGTON – The United Nations Human Rights Council today presented a landmark report saying the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS are found in the blood of nearly every person on the planet, posing health threats that justify phasing out non-essential uses of PFAS.

The report, presented at the council’s ongoing 63rd session, in Geneva, also calls for a legally binding global strategy to ultimately stop using the entire chemical class of PFAS. It also says governments should adopt stronger domestic protections and advocates for urgent medical monitoring and remedies for frontline communities living in “PFAS sacrifice zones.” 

The report is unambiguous that PFAS contamination prevention, not cleanup, has to be the goal.

The Environmental Working Group stands with North Carolina’s Clean Cape Fear, the National PFAS Contamination Coalition, and communities across the U.S. and around the world in urging governments to act on the report’s findings without delay.

But rather than strengthening protections, the Environmental Protection Agency is rolling back drinking water limits for several PFAS. At the same time, the agency is fast-tracking approval of new PFAS pesticides, with the current administration greenlighting five in less than two years. That’s despite EPA data showing serious, unresolved questions about the pesticides’ health and environmental risks.

The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, EWG’s vice president for government affairs:

The United Nations report confirms what frontline advocates and scientists have known for decades: Toxic PFAS contamination is a global human rights crisis.

PFAS are everywhere, because that’s exactly how the industry designed them. These forever chemicals were engineered never to break down, and they spread across water, soil, food and the bodies of virtually every person alive today.

The science on the harm they cause is clear: PFAS have been linked to kidney, liver, pancreatic and testicular cancers; as well as immune system suppression, thyroid disease, reduced vaccine efficacy, reproductive and developmental harm, low birth weight, increased cholesterol, weight gain in children and dieting adults, and a growing list of serious health effects.

PFAS pollution crosses borders. For decades, U.S. regulators have let industry set the pace on PFAS. Communities pay the price, like in North Carolina, where Emily Donovan’s group Clean Cape Fear is leading the fight to make polluters pay.

The United States helped create this crisis. It has a responsibility to help end it.

The world cannot filter its way out of the forever chemicals crisis. Drinking water treatment helps, but it puts the burden of a problem industry created onto the communities and utilities left to clean it up. 

Real accountability means stopping non-essential PFAS production at the source. That requires the international community to finally treat this chemical class the way the evidence has demanded for years: as a single, urgent problem, not a chemical-by-chemical negotiation industry can slow-walk for another generation.

The world’s governments now have a UN report telling them exactly what needs to happen. The only question left is whether they’ll act on it. We must stop making the problem worse and ensure that polluters – not contaminated communities – pay for the damage.

### 

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Water Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy PFAS Chemicals North Carolina New report says ‘forever chemicals’ in almost everyone’s blood, calls to phase out PFAS uses Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 September 14, 2026

“We joke that we became a food hub overnight,” said Laura Torres, the Director of the Smoky Mountain Harvest Hub (SMHH) in Waynesville, NC. This food hub, which aggregates from farmers across the region, distributes most of their produce via Haywood Christian Ministry (HCM), the highest volume food pantry in MANNA FoodBank’s service area. What […]

The post If You Give a Food Hub a Chance appeared first on RAFI.

In the coastal bays of Ocean City, Maryland, a floating wooden raft has become a thriving nesting colony for hundreds of sleek, silver-grey Common Terns – a remarkable conservation success story...

AI “doomerism” is going mainstream. This week the heads of major frontier AI companies ratcheted up their rhetoric about how dangerous the technology they are building is, calling for a “pause” on AI development.

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, which has run many of the highest profile campaigns against the use of AI for surveillance and warfare, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to the group’s director, Evan Greer (she/her):

“We can’t trust the AI industry to regulate itself. We can’t really trust anything these self-interested billionaires say. But we should take them seriously that the technology they are building is dangerous. And we should act urgently to demand strict regulation that protects people and holds AI companies accountable for the harm they’ve already done, while also preventing future harm. It’s clear that these industry leaders think they are best positioned to craft AI policy for the good of all humanity. We think that’s horseshit. Lawmakers should be listening to independent experts, researchers, civil society, and the communities most impacted. They should craft policies that address AI harm without undermining open source models or entrenching the largest players. Whether humans use AI to kill each other or AI agent swarms do immense harm, it’s clear that unregulated AI poses an existential threat to human rights and liberty, if not humanity itself. Congress should act, but they shouldn’t just do whatever the AI bros tell them to.”

Solidarity Economy (TG) Members Anchors: Melanie Bush, Halwest Karim Description The Global of Alternative Solidarity Economy Thematic Group aims to: * Share experiences of alternative economy projects around the world; * Consider our commonalities and specificities; GTA

This summer, progress took shape across Crab Meadow Marsh as scientists, volunteers, community members, and partners came together to support the future of this vital coastal habitat.A Promising Sign...

Contact: kayla@unbendablemedia.com

Statement from Mar Zepeda, Legislative Director of the Climate Justice Alliance, on the Trump administration finalizing the repeal of federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants:

“Scrapping limits on climate pollution places public health and our communities at perilous risk . We just lived through the hottest summer on record, with communities across the country enduring health consequences due to brutal heat, floods, storms and drought, and the Trump administration’s response is to give the fossil fuel industry permission to make the crisis worse. Climate change reduces air quality leading to respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, while extreme heat and flooding can lead to illness, injury and death. These risks are not shared equally: they are often faced by the same communities that have spent generations living next to power plants and other polluting industries.

“The previous power plant rule was far from perfect. We said at the time that its reliance on dangerous and unproven carbon capture technology gave the fossil fuel industry another lifeline when we should be moving away from fossil fuels altogether. The answer should have been stronger protections and a faster transition toward clean, affordable energy: not scrap federal limits on greenhouse gas pollution and give polluters free rein.

“This is also a question of who pays. When pollution continues, the costs do not disappear, they are borne by families and communities, environmental damage, extreme-weather impacts and the public costs of responding to them. Federal policy should protect communities, not leave them and taxpayers carrying the cost that polluters are better positioned to prevent.

“People deserve affordable, reliable energy, and the right to live in healthy communities without having to choose between keeping the lights on and protecting their health. Instead, this administration is choosing to keep us tied to an expensive, polluting energy system because it benefits the corporations that profit from it.”

                                                                 ###

The post Trump Move to Scrap Climate Pollution Limits After Hottest Summer on Record Is Self-destruction appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce today that it will stop regulating carbon dioxide released by power plants burning fossil fuels, according to reports. If allowed to go into effect, the second largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would be allowed to grow unchecked. In response, David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Climate Program issued the following statement:

“With this move, Trump again subverts the EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment. Allowing more climate-heating pollution from the U.S. power sector will deeply harm Americans’ health and our natural environment. It will also cost us money and put us further behind in the competition over the energy of the future, renewables.

“The EPA’s rationale, that greenhouse gas pollution doesn’t endanger human health or the environment, is absurdly wrong, and the courts should reject it.”

Registered nurses from the Kaiser Permanente and Sutter Health systems will hold an joint protest on Sept. 16 to rally for strong contracts to improve patient care at two of the Bay’s biggest hospital systems. Combined at both systems, more than 35,000 nurses are represented by CNA/NNU in active contract negotiations.