News Feeds

Prime Minister Mark Carney is betting big on a new bitumen pipeline to the west coast and with no lead private sector proponent, he might be betting with your tax dollars.

The last publicly purchased pipeline, the Trans Mountain expansion (TMX) cost taxpayers $34 billion and researchers at the International Institute of Sustainable Development estimate that the federal government would lose at least $8.9 billion if it was ever sold.

Why do we keep throwing public money at subsidizing fossil fuel infrastructure when all indications are that this new pipeline proposal is a risky bet?

DeSmog looked at the latest analysis detailing the shaky economics of a new pipeline and reached out to experts. The only winners might be financiers with short-term incentives in a position to profit even if the public is left holding the bag on another multibillion-dollar bitumen boondoggle.

“It’s important to remember that insiders often make their biggest paydays when the investment is made, not when the project is successful,” Clark Williams-Derry, an energy finance analyst at the energy think tank Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) explained to DeSmog. “This is certainly true for investment bankers who arrange financing. They earn their fees up front, when the debt or equity placement is made, not 10 years later when the project has a successful track record. Their incentive is to get a deal done, even if, in the end, it’s not a great project.”  

The current agreement between Ottawa and Alberta has the public paying for 90 percent of the project with Pembina Pipeline Corporation potentially contributing the remainder of the money – if the company decides it is worth its while.

Pembina assured its shareholders “the proposed multi-stakeholder structure is intended to appropriately align risk and responsibility among participants and includes protection for Pembina related to matters such as cost overruns and returns.”

In other words, the taxpayer may again be at the back of the line should the project go south. TMX had massive cost overruns that will likely never be recovered by the Canadian government while the primary contractors who built the pipeline were of course paid in full.

Before the Trudeau government bought TMX, Texas-based Kinder Morgan was the original developer. Kinder Morgan investors were no doubt pleased when the pipeline company offloaded TMX onto Canadian taxpayers for a cool $4.5 billion in 2018. Kinder Morgan distributed $3.98 B from this sale to their shareholders in January 2019. Ottawa was saddled with more than $30 billion in cost overruns that will likely never be recovered due to inadequate pipeline tolls. Privatized profits and socialized losses are an all-too-common tradition with Canadian mega-projects, seemingly to be soon repeated.  

Initial investors can also flip their stakes. “Private equity investors have a short time frame, usually 3-5 years, which means they have to get in and quickly find or generate a monetization event so that they can pull out their capital,” said Williams-Derry. “Sometimes they sell at a loss, but it’s still a way for the firm to find buyers even if the underlying investment is a bit of a dud. Their future investors turn into the bigger suckers to bail out today’s investors.” 

“In short, there are lots of reasons why people put good money into weak projects. One thing that’s especially telling is that an entire sector’s under performance can persist for years but still attract investors who are willing to buy on the dips or take a bet that the sector will turn around. That’s been the story of the oil and gas industry for 15 years now.”

Are these sound reasons to again gamble with billions in public funds on another bitumen pipeline? Reasoned economic analysis and daily news developments all indicate that the energy transition is accelerating.

A new report from IEEFA details what the energy market might look like in the near future and why investing vast sums into yesterday’s infrastructure would likely be a money-loser. IEEFA considered projected oil prices, pipeline tolls, shipping costs to Asian markets, and of course the scenario that the government builds another 1,100 km pipeline to the Pacific, bankrolled by the beleaguered taxpayer.

IEEFA researchers found that only under the Canada Energy Regulator’s most optimistic oil demand scenario is a new pipeline even remotely profitable. A more plausible future energy market assumes an accelerating energy transition already being turbocharged by Iran-war price spikes will continue apace, destroying the business case for the planned pipeline. Expanding existing pipeline capacity would more than meet future production needs without the need of an additional mega-project or new bitumen mines.

Market dynamics are playing out in real time as soaring war-related fuel costs are causing entire national economies to retool their dependence on vulnerable deliveries of crude oil. Electrification of the transportation sector in China has already eliminated 36 million tonnes of global oil demand in the last six months, equivalent to the entire share consumed by the United Kingdom in the same time frame.

Carbon Brief just released another report showing that electric vehicles are nine times cheaper to operate than gas cars. No one needs a crystal ball to see where consumer demand is going as spiking fuel costs coincide with plunging prices for batteries that have declined 99 percent since 1991.

Another west coast pipeline would likely not become operational for six to eight years. Is this a wise financial investment as the energy transition accelerates? The oil patch doesn’t necessarily seem to think so, given that none of the major bitumen producers currently on track to rake in profits of $100 billion this year are prepared to pony up their own money for the project. 

Making another massive fossil fuel investment based on short-term war-related price spikes or the self-interest of financial insiders is not a prudent financial path forward. Do better Prime Minister Carney.

The post The Real Winners From a New Canadian Oil Pipeline Are Private Investors appeared first on DeSmog.

Equipo de Facilitadores Este es un equipo interino, formado por 19 personas, que actualmente está llevando a cabo el proceso de para permitir el tejido de alternativas. El equipo como colectivo o como individuos no posee ningún poder centralizado.

Facilitation Team This is an interim team, formed by 19 persons currently, that is currently holding the process to enable the weaving of alternatives. The team as a collective or as individuals doesn't hold any centralised power. ---------- Ananeza “AnggingalternativesalternativesalternativesalternativesAlternatives

The PJM Interconnection expects Engie’s two storage projects totaling nearly 1.7 GW and LS Power’s 455-MW gas-fired uprate will be online by mid-2029.

Researchers have recorded a new species of giant waterlily after first spotting the plant in an Instagram photo. 

Read more on E360 →

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Week Without Driving ended this week but keep fighting for freedom of transportation for all! Sign up with Transit For All PA! for more information.

Image Source: KYW News

Metro Philadelphia: SEPTA universal student fare cards could carry hefty cost for Philadelphia – Current SEPTA Student Fare cards are only available for students in grades 7 through 12 who live at least a mile and a half away from their school. The cards can only be used between 5:30 a.m. and 8 p.m. during the school year, meaning cards are not valid on weekends, holidays, or over the summer. Expanding the cards to give students unrestricted transit access could cost up to $64 million a year. Philadelphia school board officials testified that they would support the expansion initiative if there was a dedicated funding source. Fare cost can be a significant barrier to accessing opportunities for students and families.

Image Source: CBS Philadelphia

CBS Philadelphia: Here’s when the 2nd Pennsylvanian Amtrak route will start – The second daily round trip from Pittsburgh to New York City will be added next month, with stops including Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and a dozen others. Amtrak ridership has grown 20% since 2019, and the demand for more service was a driving factor in this route, which begins on November 18.

Image Source: The Inquirer

The Inquirer: Accelerate to the modern SEPTA the region deserves – The infrastructure in Philadelphia, specifically in Center City, offers millions of people commuting options to the largest employment hub in the region. However, relying on infrastructure from a century ago is limiting where SEPTA can grow. SEPTA’s recently- released Accelerate plan offers better connectivity with Regional Rail, more trips offered on subways and buses, but the piece missing from this improvement plan is dedicated and secure funding.

Other Stories

Philadelphia Today: Borski Park Reconnects Bridesburg With the Delaware River

WHYY: What should Philly’s streeteries look like? The city wants your input

Philly Voice: These Philly walking groups help people boost their fitness and mental health, and they welcome others to join

The Inquirer: Roxborough’s Shawmont Station, a 200-year-old railroad depot, is slated to become a train museum

CBS Pittsburgh: Southwest adding 3 nonstop destinations from Pittsburgh International Airport next summer

Billy Penn: ‘One-shot Mar’ crowned Philadelphia’s best parallel parker

26248Our area has been experiencing drought conditions since November 2024, but September 2026 brought 9.46" of rain, which is 13% above the September average. Since the start of the 2026 rainy...

Investor-owned gas and electric utilities in the third quarter requested a record $4.5 billion in rate hikes, according to a Wednesday report from PowerLines. Collectively, utilities in the South requested the highest amount, at $2.2 billion.

It wasn’t that long ago that bison were scarce in South Dakota.

In just six years, that’s changed dramatically. Now, more than 1,100 bison roam the grasslands, already the largest Native-owned bison herd in the world and still growing. The Sicáŋğu Food Sovereignty Initiative is also helping community members learn to grow, produce, harvest, and prepare their own food, while workforce development programs support farmers, ranchers, aspiring entrepreneurs.

The name of the organization speaks for itself: This is not only a success story for one Indigenous group; it’s a success story for efforts everywhere toward food sovereignty.

“When I first started, [people couldn’t] really articulate what food sovereignty was or understand the importance of it. But now, people are seeing the urgency and that importance,” says Matte Wilson, Deputy Director of the Sicáŋğu Community Development Corporation.

The urgency of building food sovereignty in Indigenous communities is stark. Food insecurity levels among Native households in the United States are significantly above the national average. Indigenous people are “up to three times more likely to die from cardiometabolic diseases compared to other groups,” a Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems report notes. And tragically, this is no accident. Over recent centuries, federal policies have restricted traditional food systems, disinvested in reservations, interfered in organizing efforts, and more.

But when Indigenous communities set the terms for their own food and agriculture systems, land management practices, economic structures, cultural expression, and health policy, things change for the better. There’s deep wisdom in these foodways—wisdom that’s lasted thousands of years and can continue to protect and nourish communities to this day.

Michael Kotutwa Johnson’s work at the University of Arizona’s Indigenous Resilience Center, for example works to advance Indigenous resilience research, education, and outreach. And Johnson’s work in particular has focused on bringing back traditional varieties of Hopi crops.

Without biodiversity, “we have no true sustainability,” he says. “[These seeds are] a backbone of our community. They’re the things that survived us, and it’s taken us years and years to cultivate. So to bring them back home, finally, is very important.”

Within Indigenous models of food sovereignty, we also see concepts like Food is Medicine and local foodways as inherent truths. This is why acclaimed Chef Sean Sherman is so frustrated with the U.S. government’s new upside-down-pyramid model of dietary guidelines, he told us at Climate Week NYC a couple weeks ago. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, he created the RING Diet (Regional Indigenous Nutritional Guide).

“We’re all different people and that’s what’s beautiful about this one because it’s regional, so you can make rings everywhere and it can go global quickly,” he said at Climate Week. “The more we eat for health, the better off we’ll be and the more understanding we have.”

Those benefits extend beyond food systems, to all parts of people’s livelihoods. I love seeing how the First Nations Development Institute works to not just invest in Native food and agriculture systems but also to strengthen research and advocacy for Native economic justice, support the stewardship of Native lands, and help protect and amplify Native arts, language, and knowledge systems.

And the organization Native Agriculture Financial Services (NAFS) provides capital to support agriculture production, rural business development, and rural infrastructure for Native American farmers, ranchers, and agricultural communities.

“Health isn’t just about individual choices. It’s about community, environment, and the systems around us,” says A-dae Romero Briones, a Vice President at the First Nations Development Institute.

Across the entire food system, we would all do well to continue elevating Indigenous voices—and, for those of us who come from different backgrounds, deeply listening. How can we learn from these traditions to build stronger local food networks and more resilient land management practices everywhere? How can we advocate for food sovereignty in even more communities? How can we embed this interconnected understanding of food and environment and health into all parts of our political and economic systems?

None of us has all these answers, of course—but there’s no question that, the harder we work toward a food system model rooted in local sovereignty, the better off we’ll all be!

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Anne Preble, Unsplash

The post Celebrating Indigenous Food Sovereignty Efforts that Drive Wide-Ranging Change appeared first on Food Tank.

A new Community Greening Plan is coming to the Cobbs Creek Watershed, and community members will play a central role in shaping it.

A greening plan is a community-driven process where residents help shape a park plan designed to expand, restore, and maintain green spaces within a neighborhood. 

Residents and local organizations will help define the vision, identify sites, and set priorities, rather than receiving a fully baked plan from outside experts. To ensure that the process of creating this plan is community-led and reflects neighbors’ visions, there will be stipends available for people to be Community Greening Liaisons.  

Why Cobbs Creek, and Why Now?

Other parks and watersheds across the city have greening plans that unlock funding for access, recreation, conservation, and stewardship. Cobbs Creek doesn’t have one. Neighbors deserve a clean, safe, well-maintained park. Pollution, water quality, illegal dumping, invasive species, and safety concerns all deserve real attention and real investment.

Community leaders and organizations have been caring for Cobbs Creek for years. Future visions of the land should be built around them. City projects are being planned in and around Cobbs Creek. Greening plans give the community a voice in those decisions.

Community Greening Priorities

• Park and creek restoration and stewardship
• Maintenance and illegal dumping
• Forming a resident-led park organization
• Programming and education
• Environmental justice and park resources advocacy

Become a Community Greening Liaison

To make sure the planning process reflects the experiences and priorities of people who live in the surrounding communities, Community Greening Liaisons will serve as a connection between residents and the planning process.

Liaisons will:

• Gather input from neighbors
• Carry community recommendations forward
• Share updates as a trusted community voice
• Connect residents with opportunities to get involved

Residents of Overbrook Park, Carroll Park, Haddington, Cobbs Creek, Kingsessing, Paschall and Elmwood Park are encouraged to apply. The application deadline is Nov. 1.

Interested in becoming a Community Greening Liaison, or know someone who would be a good fit?

Apply to become a Community Greening Liaison

From Swiss trademarks and Bahamas trading profits to Dutch tax secrecy, Shell’s financial history has acquired an impressive recurring theme: when the numbers become interesting, the explanation becomes complicated. Very complicated.

SATIRE — based on documented events, published investigations and official regulatory records.

After three Shell tax articles in a single morning, readers might reasonably wonder whether we are in danger of becoming repetitive.

Not at all.

Shell has thoughtfully provided several decades of material.

Today we learned that the Dutch Ministry of Finance cannot discuss Shell’s leaked transfer-pricing arrangements because they remain protected by fiscal confidentiality — despite the relevant documents having been leaked, published, analysed by researchers, debated by tax academics, defended by Shell and placed before Parliament.

Earlier, our deceased guest columnist Sir Henri Deterding expressed admiration for this achievement.

Everything is public.

Everyone can read it.

But the people who know whether the tax authority agreed with it are forbidden from saying so.

Even Deterding could hardly have designed a better system.

And he was very good at systems.

Shell tax avoidance: apparently not a new hobby

Readers encountering the 2026 Shell Files controversy for the first time might assume that offshore structures, Swiss intellectual property, low-tax jurisdictions and inventive intra-group arrangements represent some exciting new innovation.

Our archive rather spoils that theory.

The Royal Dutch Shell Tax Avoidance Index, assembled years ago, preserves reporting stretching back through earlier controversies involving Switzerland, Bermuda, Luxembourg, Australia, Alaska and the United Kingdom.

Among the contemporary reports indexed there were:

The Guardian, 2009: Shell had transferred ownership of its famous trademarks to Switzerland.

Dutch reporting, 2013: Shell and ABN Amro were described by critics as “masters in tax avoidance.”

US reporting, 2013–14: Shell’s handling of the Kulluk Arctic drilling rig became embroiled in allegations that tax considerations influenced its movements.

Australian reporting, 2015: scrutiny of Shell’s tax position included substantial intercompany financing costs paid to offshore Shell entities.

The old index is still available here. Royal Dutch Shell Tax Avoidance Index

The terminology has evolved.

So have the jurisdictions.

But the general subject matter has a reassuring familiarity.

The Shell logo went skiing in Switzerland

One particularly useful historical reference comes from The Guardian’s 2009 Tax Gap investigation.

The newspaper reported that legal ownership of Shell’s globally recognised trademarks had been transferred to Shell Brands International AG in Switzerland.

That Swiss entity could then receive royalties from other Shell companies using the trademarks.

Shell told the Guardian that the move was undertaken for “entirely commercial” reasons, enabling more effective and consistent management of its trademarks.

Which is perfectly possible.

Switzerland is, after all, famous for mountains, watches, chocolate and unexpectedly efficient management of multinational intellectual property.

The Guardian also reported that Shell’s corporate restructuring following the 2005 unification had placed the parent company’s tax residence in the Netherlands. The Guardian

Fast-forward seventeen years and the newly leaked Shell Files are once again examining Swiss Shell royalties.

One could almost believe in corporate tradition.

Bahamas: population 400,000, Shell traders 37, profits $6.2 billion

Then we reach the Bahamas.

According to SOMO’s 2026 analysis, Shell Western Supply and Trading Limited recorded approximately $6.2 billion in profit between 2018 and 2023 while employing 37 people.

Shell says those employees were skilled commodity traders genuinely responsible for substantial commercial risk.

That may be so.

They must certainly have been busy.

Thirty-seven people generating billions of dollars in profit makes the average British productivity debate look embarrassingly unambitious.

Perhaps the Dutch government should stop worrying about economic growth and simply relocate Rotterdam to Nassau.

Shell rejects allegations that it improperly shifted profits and says its transfer-pricing arrangements comply with OECD guidelines and applicable law.

That defence belongs in any serious account.

Unfortunately for satire, it also gives us the perfect institutional arrangement:

Shell says the tax authorities knew.

The tax authorities cannot say whether Shell is right.

Everybody wins.

Except perhaps Parliament, which would quite like an answer.

Dutch service companies discover socialism

Then there is the intriguing question of Shell service companies in the Netherlands.

According to the Shell Files investigation, some historic arrangements involved group services being recharged at cost without a profit mark-up.

Professor Jan van de Streek has publicly criticised aspects of those arrangements and reportedly considers some of them inconsistent with the arm’s-length principle.

Shell strongly disputes allegations of illegality.

The Dutch government has now helpfully explained the general rule without saying anything about Shell specifically.

Routine intra-group services generally attract an arm’s-length profit margin.

Certain qualifying low-value services can use a simplified 5% mark-up.

There can also be circumstances where no mark-up is justified.

And was Shell’s particular treatment correct?

Ah.

Article 67.

Fiscal confidentiality.

Next question.

For an oil company usually regarded as an enthusiastic practitioner of capitalism, the concept of one Shell company performing services for another without making a profit has a certain charming collectivist quality.

From each subsidiary according to its functions.

To each offshore entity according to its transfer-pricing documentation.

Karl Marx would presumably have asked to see the comparables.

Fortunately, Shell has experience with awkward numbers

Whenever Shell and complex financial numbers appear in the same story, students of corporate history may experience an involuntary flashback.

The year was 2004.

The subject was not tax.

It was something even more fundamental for an oil company:

oil and gas reserves.

Shell had repeatedly reported quantities of “proved” reserves to investors which did not satisfy the required SEC standards.

The ultimate scale was enormous.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission found that Shell had overstated its reported proved hydrocarbon reserves for 2002 by:

4.47 billion barrels of oil equivalent

or approximately:

23%

The SEC also found that the corresponding standardised measure of future cash flows was overstated by approximately $6.6 billion.

Shell paid a $120 million civil penalty in the US settlement.

The companies settled without admitting or denying the SEC’s substantive findings. SEC

That was not an activist allegation.

It was an enforcement action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

And there is a particularly uncomfortable passage in the SEC record.

The Commission said the overstatement and delay in correcting it resulted partly from a desire to create and maintain the appearance of a strong reserves replacement ratio, an important performance measure watched by investors. SEC

In other words, Shell once had a problem involving numbers that looked excellent until someone examined how they had been classified.

Purely by coincidence, the present tax controversy involves arguments over where profits should be classified.

History does not repeat itself.

It sometimes does, however, develop an unfortunate sense of humour.

The important difference

There is a crucial distinction.

The reserves scandal produced regulatory findings.

The current transfer-pricing controversy has not.

No court judgment identified in the present material establishes that Shell’s leaked transfer-pricing arrangements were unlawful.

No Dutch government finding currently establishes that Shell received improper tax treatment.

No European Commission ruling identified here concludes that the arrangements constituted prohibited state aid.

SOMO, Follow the Money and tax academics have raised serious questions.

Shell disputes accusations of wrongdoing.

And the Dutch government will not disclose Shell’s individual tax treatment.

That distinction is not a minor legal footnote.

It is the difference between documented regulatory wrongdoing in 2004 and contested allegations in 2026.

Satire works better when the facts beneath it are accurate.

Shell has heard this tax tune before

What the older archive demonstrates is that the 2026 controversy did not appear from nowhere.

In 2009 the Guardian reported on Shell trademarks being held in Switzerland and royalty payments flowing there.

Shell denied that tax avoidance motivated the move and described the rationale as commercial. The Guardian

Years later, Shell’s Swiss intellectual-property arrangements have again become the subject of transfer-pricing scrutiny.

The old archive also records controversies involving Bermuda, Luxembourg and other offshore arrangements.

Again, the existence of an offshore company does not prove tax evasion.

Nor is tax avoidance necessarily unlawful.

Multinational groups operate across borders and legitimately organise financing, intellectual property and trading through international subsidiaries.

The interesting question is not whether Shell has subsidiaries in exotic locations.

It is whether the allocation of profit between them reflects genuine economic activity and complies with the arm’s-length principle.

That is precisely what the leaked documents have reopened for debate.

A short course in modern corporate transparency

The 2026 system can therefore be summarised as follows.

Shell publishes tax principles.

Shell says it complies with OECD rules.

Shell says relevant arrangements were discussed transparently with tax authorities.

Internal Shell documents leak.

Researchers analyse them.

Academics question them.

Parliament asks the Dutch government whether the tax authority agreed with Shell.

The government replies that taxpayer confidentiality prevents it from answering.

The government then assures Parliament that it sees no reason for a special investigation.

This is not secrecy in the traditional sense.

Traditional secrecy involves preventing people from learning something.

This is a more sophisticated Dutch model in which everybody knows what they are discussing, but the institution with the answer is legally prohibited from joining the conversation.

Sir Henri Deterding was right.

It really is an art form.

Imagine the reserves scandal under the same rules

For purposes of satire, imagine applying the current model retrospectively to 2004.

Investor: “Did Shell overstate its reserves?”

Shell: “We comply with all applicable reporting standards.”

Regulator: “We cannot discuss the affairs of an individual oil company.”

Investor: “But Shell just cut the reserves.”

Regulator: “We cannot confirm that the barrels you can no longer see were previously there.”

Investor: “The company announced it.”

Regulator: “Information becoming public does not remove our duty of confidentiality.”

Investor: “How many barrels are missing?”

Regulator: “Approximately—”

lawyer whispers

Regulator: “We cannot comment.”

Fortunately, securities regulation did not work that way.

The SEC investigated.

It published detailed findings.

Investors learned that the 2002 reserve overstatement amounted to approximately 23%.

Accountability became possible because the regulator could actually explain what it had found.

Tax confidentiality presents a different problem

Tax information is legitimately subject to greater confidentiality.

Nobody should pretend otherwise.

A functioning tax system depends upon businesses and individuals being able to provide sensitive information to revenue authorities.

The State Secretary therefore has a serious legal basis for refusing to disclose taxpayer-specific material.

But that does not eliminate the accountability problem exposed by the Shell Files.

Indeed, it creates it.

The public can inspect leaked material.

Parliament can ask questions.

Shell can provide its explanation.

Researchers can publish competing calculations.

But there is no public access to the most important piece of the puzzle:

what the Dutch tax authority actually concluded.

Perhaps it thoroughly examined the arrangements and found them correct.

Perhaps it challenged them.

Perhaps Shell made adjustments.

Perhaps rulings were reached.

Perhaps additional tax was paid.

Perhaps none of those things happened.

We do not know.

And the government says it cannot tell us.

Shell therefore occupies a remarkably comfortable position

The company can legitimately say:

“We discussed these matters with the tax authorities.”

Critics can ask:

“And did the tax authorities agree?”

The government responds:

“Confidential.”

Shell need not invoke secrecy itself.

The state does it for them.

This does not make Shell guilty of anything.

It does make independent verification rather difficult.

Which is rather convenient when your corporate history already contains a 2004 reminder that independent verification can occasionally uncover several billion barrels’ worth of unpleasant surprises.

The ghost of Sir Henri returns

Our fictional Deterding therefore wishes to amend yesterday’s statement.

“I initially praised the Dutch Ministry for turning tax secrecy into an art form. Having now reviewed the historical archive, I withdraw the compliment.

“This is no longer art.

“It is heritage.”

He would perhaps also observe that international tax planning has become unnecessarily complicated.

In his era, businesses went abroad because that was where the oil was.

Now apparently the oil can be in Nigeria, Brazil or the North Sea, the traders can be in the Bahamas, the trademarks can be in Switzerland, the parent company can move from The Hague to London, and the tax explanation can reside safely inside a Dutch government filing cabinet marked:

CANNOT COMMENT

Progress.

The serious conclusion behind the joke

There is a serious point beneath all of this.

Shell is one of the world’s largest multinational corporations.

It operates through hundreds of companies, across numerous tax systems, with internal transactions involving oil, gas, LNG, intellectual property, finance, technical services and commodity trading.

Transfer pricing is unavoidable.

The question is whether the rules consistently allocate taxable profit to the places where genuine economic value is created.

The Shell Files argue that the international system can produce outcomes in which very large profits appear in low-tax jurisdictions.

Shell says its arrangements reflect genuine commercial functions and comply with the rules.

Those competing positions deserve scrutiny.

The problem is that the Dutch institution best placed to resolve at least part of the argument is legally prevented from telling the public what it knows.

That may be entirely proper under current law.

But nobody should confuse legally mandated silence with exoneration.

The Dutch government has not cleared Shell of the allegations contained in the leaked transfer-pricing material.

It has declined to discuss Shell’s individual tax affairs.

Those are very different things.

And Shell’s history gives investors one further reason to insist upon precision.

In 2004, Shell’s proved-reserves numbers turned out to be overstated by 4.47 billion barrels — approximately 23%.

That episode taught a rather expensive lesson:

When dealing with a multinational oil company, the location and classification of billions can matter.

Then it was barrels.

Today it is profits.

And this time, the government says the answer is confidential.

Documentary sources

The current Shell tax controversy and Dutch government’s fiscal-confidentiality position are covered in today’s related articles:

Dutch Government Refuses to Reveal What It Knows About Shell Tax Leaks — Citing Tax Secrecy

Read the article

Dutch Ministry of Finance Says Leaked Shell Tax Documents Remain Confidential: Cannot Confirm What Everyone Has Already Read

Read the satire

Shell Founder Hails Dutch Ministry’s Tax Secrecy as “An Art Form”

Read Sir Henri Deterding’s entirely fictional contribution

The site’s historical tax archive demonstrates that scrutiny of Shell’s international tax structures considerably predates the 2026 Shell Files:

Royal Dutch Shell Tax Avoidance Index

The Guardian’s 2009 investigation documented the transfer of Shell trademark ownership to Switzerland and Shell’s explanation that the move was made for commercial reasons. The Guardian

The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2004 enforcement record documents the 4.47-billion-barrel, approximately 23% proved-reserves overstatement and the $120 million civil penalty. SEC

Satirical disclaimer: Sir Henri Deterding died in 1939 and has not commented on Dutch tax policy, transfer pricing, the Bahamas, DEMPE functions or anything else since. Any purported remarks from him in this article are obviously fictional. The factual material surrounding the satire is drawn from the sources identified above.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Shell Tax Secrecy: Same Playbook, Different Century — And Please Don’t Mention the 23% was first posted on October 9, 2026 at 1:43 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

U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest threat to hike auto tariffs and rip key parts of the sector out of Canada puts more pressure on Ottawa to align Canadian auto policy with Washington.What does alignment look like? It is what Canada has been doing...

Andy 'must cap oil' Channel News brendan 9th October 2026 Teaser Media

After years of increasing ambition, global climate pledges have quieted down under the weight of geopolitical conflict and economic friction emanating from south of the border. Yet the physical reality of climate change hasn't stalled: We are no...

In areas around the world, growing opposition to climate action signals a new disruptive wave that researchers call an “urban greenlash,” a backlash against climate plans and policies in cities.

A thriving village is a collective creation. People, place, participation, creativity, and inclusion are the ingredients.

Mitchell’s new book reinforces this essential point. We must see through the alibi of capital, we must reclaim society from the grip of the economy, and we must change the rules of the game to save our collective future.

Radical Routes members Wren Draper and Caz Montgomery chart 40 years of work building alternatives to neoliberal capitalism

The post Radical Routes: Britain’s quiet co-operative revolution appeared first on Red Pepper.

A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.

The “common sense” policy document argues that “what people ultimately want is a government competent enough to solve the problems for which it takes responsibility”.

In a section that says “sophisticat[ed]…modelling” should not be a substitute for “political judgement”, the “Right Way” document disparages various estimates of the cost of net-zero.

The Conservative document then claims – incorrectly – that the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), had put the cost of net-zero at close to £1tn. It says:

“In 2020, the CCC estimated that its route to net-zero would cost £957bn.”

In fact, the CCC’s 2020 estimate was exactly half this amount – £478bn – and last year it published a revised figure of £108bn, largely as a result of the falling cost of electric vehicles (EVs).

Spreadsheet error

The Conservative party’s erroneous claim appears to stem from another report that had accidentally added up numbers twice, using a spreadsheet published by the CCC in 2020.

The 2020 spreadsheet contains a table listing the additional investments that would be needed to build a net-zero economy, from low-carbon electricity generation through to heat pumps and EVs.

These extra capital expenditures, listed as “CAPEX”, add up to a total of £1.38tn over the 30 years of 2020-50. They are set against operational savings, listed as “OPEX”, of £0.90tn.

Added up over 2020-50, the combined CAPEX and OPEX figures come to a total of £478bn.

In addition to the annual sectoral CAPEX and OPEX figures, the CCC’s 2020 spreadsheet also has a line giving combined totals for each year. It appears that someone has added all of these numbers together, resulting in the savings and costs being counted twice.

This double-counted total for the cost of net-zero amounts to £957bn – as shown in the image below – and it appears to be the source of the claim in the Conservative booklet.

At the time of publication in 2020, the CCC said that the £478bn net cost of net-zero amounted to less than 1% of GDP over 30 years – and that the large investment needed would not only result in savings due to lower fossil-fuel imports, but that it would boost GDP overall, by around 2%.

In 2025, the CCC revised its estimates for investment costs and operating savings to £670bn and £562bn respectively, giving a net total of £108bn over 2025-50, or less than 0.2% of GDP.

Earlier this year, the committee said that cutting emissions to net-zero would cost less than a single fossil-fuel price shock and that doing so would have benefits worth £110bn per year.

Paper trail

The erroneous claim in the Conservative document is referenced to the CCC’s 2020 advice on the UK’s sixth “carbon budget”, which, as explained, does not contain the £957bn figure.

The earliest online use of the £957bn figure found by Carbon Brief is a 12 January 2026 article in the Spectator, by retired engineer and self-described “accidental energy analyst” David Turver.

A day later, Turver repeated the mistaken number in a report for the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. His report cites figure 5.3 of the CCC’s 2020 advice.

However, as set out above, the CCC spreadsheet containing the data for figure 5.3 only adds up to £478bn, half the figure claimed by Turver.

It appears that Turver accidentally added up all of the numbers in the CCC spreadsheet, without noting that it already included a line for the annual total. This results in double-counting the cost.

(Turver’s report also triggered a slew of inaccurate headlines stating that net-zero would cost £7.6tn – or even £9tn. These figures, which came from Turver’s report, were based, among other things, on the implicit assumption that fossil fuels and the cars, boilers and power plants that use them are all free.)

After Turver’s report and article in January 2026, the erroneous £957bn figure was repeated in March by the Great British Think Tank. The organisation has the tagline “data, not vibes” and says of its work: “Every figure [is] sourced from official public bodies.”

The £957bn figure then appeared in the Conservative “Right Way” document in October 2026.

related Analysis: EVs are now nine times cheaper than petrol or diesel to drive in the UK  24.09.2026 Oil and gas CCC: Heathrow expansion could push flights to ‘80% of UK emissions by 2050’ 16.09.2026 Emissions Revealed: England’s June 2026 heatwave sparked record demand for ambulances 14.09.2026 Health and society Factcheck: Reform UK’s 45 false or misleading claims about climate and energy 11.09.2026 UK policy

The post Factcheck: UK Conservatives double the ‘cost of net-zero’ after spreadsheet blunder appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Just six months after Paradise, California was laid waste by the most deadly and destructive wildfire in the state’s history — November 2018’s Camp Fire — the town’s mayor received a generous-sounding offer from a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm.

“Our hearts were with you as we watched the fire unfold,” wrote Kristi Moore, managing partner of strategic development at The Ferguson Group, in a letter dated May 19, 2019. “We would like to offer our services to the Town of Paradise on a pro bono basis and become an official partner as you further develop and implement your recovery plans.”

Paradise soon took The Ferguson Group (TFG) up on its offer, according to a lobbying disclosure filed with Congress dated July 15, 2019, to provide “strategic advice” and assistance with obtaining federal funds to recover from the unprecedented disaster. During the same period, TFG was also working with the National Stripper Well Association, a fossil fuel industry trade group, according to research by two climate campaign groups.

The Ferguson Group is one of nearly 230 fossil fuel lobbyists identified in a recent report by the groups, F Minus and Make Polluters Pay, that also work for clients that support climate action or — like the local government of Paradise — are seeking federal aid to cope with climate-related impacts or disasters. They have dubbed such lobbyists “climate double agents” for representing fossil fuel interests while “simultaneously lobbying on almost every aspect of the climate crisis, from climate mitigation to disaster relief to wildlife conservation.”

Subscribe to Desmog

Get the weekly intelligence you need to hold polluters accountable

Email Address Sign Up Send me intelligence from: All US/Global team UK/Europe team Sign Up --> (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

The research, released in August, is also included in online database maintained by F Minus that also contains information on 1,500 state-level fossil fuel lobbyists representing more than 14,000 non-industry clients that publicly advocated action on climate change, including non-profit groups, schools, municipal governments, and hospitals.

“I think it would blow the majority of the public’s mind if they knew this was happening,” said Cassidy DiPaola, the communications director of Make Polluters Pay.

California is no stranger to wildfires, but the Camp Fire’s unprecedented scope of devastation — 85 dead, 50,000 displaced, and nearly 19,000 structures destroyed across 153,336 acres of land in 16 days — was in large part due 2018’s extremely hot and dry weather conditions in Northern California, which were intensified by climate change.

The National Stripper Well Association (NSWA) is a trade group representing over 1,000 producers, owners, and operators of crude oil and natural gas wells. Lobbying disclosure forms that TFG filed with Congress in July 2026 indicate that its work for the NSWA includes monitoring “congressional activities on methane related issues.”

The Trump administration is in the process of rolling back Biden-era mandates for oil and gas companies to cut their emissions of methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas, as Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin confirmed to a convention of oil and gas producers in Santa Fe on October 7. 

The Ferguson Group is the “most conflicted firm on wildfire and natural disaster relief issues,” said James Browning, founder and executive director of F Minus, and one of the report’s authors, told DeSmog. “They have an appalling map of activity funding the opposition on climate.”

However, “climate-ravaged cities and countries are locked into relationships” with such lobbying firms, he said, because “they certainly don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them.”

The Ferguson Group did not respond to DeSmog’s request for comment.

Of the 228 lobbyists named in the recent report, 47 were simultaneously working with fossil fuel interests and local governments seeking climate change-related relief.

In the first quarter of 2026, TFG was engaged with 50 local governments on climate-related work, according to the report — more than any other firm mentioned — while also working with five fossil fuel-related clients: the NSWA, the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Texas Alliance for Energy Producers, Cat Creek Energy, and Southern California Public Power Authority.

The Ferguson Group focuses on lobbying Congress and the federal government, according to its website, with client services that include developing legislative and regulatory strategies, advocacy coordination, and pursuing grants on issues related to water, infrastructure, energy, natural resources, and the environment.

Throughout 2022 and 2023, according to disclosure forms filed with Congress, TFG lobbied for Paradise to receive federal support through the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, which approved $2 trillion in economic recovery aid during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as FEMA hazard mitigation grants under 2023’s Hazard Eligibility and Local Projects Act. 

In February 2023, TFG also helped Paradise municipal officials draft the town’s updated “Federal Platform and Priorities,” which “documented recovery successes, immediate needs, as well as long term needs and policy considerations,” according to a Paradise Council Agenda Summary.

As recently as this summer, TFG represented Paradise’s “interests in Washington, DC [sic] with a specific focus on disaster recovery and response related to wildfires,” as well as “natural resources, clean air and water, and agriculture.”

Despite beginning its work with Paradise on a pro bono basis, Paradise has paid The Ferguson Group over $300,000 as of July 2026, according to the company’s disclosure firms filed with Congress. Paradise’s Office of Recovery and Economic Development did not respond to DeSmog’s questions on the extent of TFG’s work with the community, or the town’s awareness of its work with the fossil fuel industry.

The Ferguson Group’s relationship with the National Stripper Well Association goes back to 2017, according to disclosure forms filed with Congress. The NSWA describes itself as representing the interests of the nation’s “smallest and most economically-vulnerable oil and natural gas wells.”

TFG has lobbied on the group’s behalf for industry-favorable positions on “percentage depletion” and “pass-through deduction”— two separate tax provisions that allow eligible oil and gas operators to reduce taxable income and federal income tax burdens. The NSWA has framed these tax provisions as a way to help these smaller operators stay afloat. However, an Environmental Defense Fund analysis has shown that even though the industry likes to maintain that marginal wells are run by small businesses, nearly half of all marginal wells are owned by just 93 corporations, each of which controls more than 1,000 wells.

Shortly after The Ferguson Group began lobbying for Paradise, the firm also started working for the Permian Basin Petroleum Association (PBPA), the oldest and most active trade association representing oil and gas operators, midstream providers, and service companies across the largest oil-producing region in the United States.

Christopher Kearney, a principal and oil and gas lobbyist at TFG, was the author of strikingly parallel language used by two small oil and gas producers in their 2024 congressional testimonies against the Waste Emissions Charge, a Biden-era methane fee charged to polluters, as reported by E&E News. Kearney was the signatory on the company’s lobbying disclosure forms regarding for its work for the NSWA from 2021 to 2026, and for the PBPA from 2020 to 2024.

Although these forms do not list greenhouse gas regulatory-related activities as part of The Ferguson Group’s work with the PBPA, E&E News reported in January 2024 that Michael Oestman, an oil and gas operator and “longtime” member of the PBPA, originally got connected to Kearney “through the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, which reached out to see if [Oestman] would be willing to testify before Congress on the methane fee.”

RELATED: How the Oil Industry Is Pushing EPA to ‘Effectively Gut’ Methane Rules During Affordability and Climate Crises

Additionally, the Ferguson group’s 2024 disclosure of its work for PBPA, the most recent year available, included “monitor[ing] Congressional and Federal agency activities related to addressing COVID on the general economy and the oil and gas industry” as well as “activities regarding Endangered Species Act reform.”

The Permian Basin is home to three of the country’s most endangered species, according to the Center for Biological Diversity: the lesser prairie chicken, freshwater mussel, and dunes sagebrush lizard. The Trump administration delisted the lizard from the Endangered Species Act in June, settling a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton contending that the rule could “undermine energy production” and threaten “private landowners’ ability to conduct business.”

In 2024, Texas produced about 28 percent of the nation’s total natural gas, and more than two fifths of the nation’s total crude oil production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

In addition to Paradise, Ferguson has also lobbied for Asheville, North Carolina after it was devastated by Hurricane Helene in 2024. The details of TFG’s work for Asheville included in its lobbying disclosure forms are limited, but each filing includes “work with the city in response to Hurricane Helene.” Asheville’s communications specialist declined to respond to DeSmog’s questions about the extent of TFG’s work with the community, the amount the city has paid to TFG, or its awareness of the firm’s work with fossil fuel clients.

“It almost becomes natural disaster tourism, right?” said Browning of F Minus. “They see a natural disaster and they swoop in. And now they’re making money by lobbying off it.”

A separate report from Brown University’s Climate Development Lab (CDL), published in tandem with the F Minus and Make Polluters Pay analysis, documented systemic and coordinated opposition to state-level climate superfund bills by fossil fuel and energy-intensive industries. This type of legislation, which is growing in popularity around the country, would require large fossil fuel producers and refiners to pay for state-level climate damages as well as adapting infrastruture to the new climate normal  

“To me, it’s an issue of kindergarten ethics,” said Timmons Roberts, a professor of environmental studies at Brown who a co-authored the report. “If you know you made a mess, you clean it up.”

The Brown researchers found that while support for climate superfund bills has “dominated” pubic hearings, groups lobbying in opposition to them have made more submissions during public comment periods, sometimes swaying state leaders against the legislation. The Ferguson Group was not named in the report.

The post Consulting Firm Lobbied for Town Hit by Climate Disaster and Fossil Fuel Group at the Same Time appeared first on DeSmog.