News Feeds

LONDON — In a move hailed by branding experts as “the ultimate stress test for human optimism,” marketing and technology group MSQ has successfully landed a spot on Shell’s global agency roster. The agency group will reportedly deploy its finest minds to tackle the oil titan’s latest and most elusive challenge: convincing the public that decades of corporate controversies are actually just a vintage, artisanal mist. The appointment, which followed a grueling six-month competitive pitch process handled by the intermediary Booster, will see MSQ agencies like The Gate and MBAstack handling everything from digital marketing to influencer campaigns. Insiders report that the agency won the business after presenting a pitch deck codenamed “Project Chameleon.” The core strategy? Deploying high-frequency AI algorithms and TikTok lifestyle trends to ensure that if the future is rendered in a shiny enough gloss, the past becomes visually inaccessible. The PR Roadblocks: A Scannable Overview To construct its new global campaign, MSQ is reportedly dividing Shell’s brand liabilities into discrete narrative buckets, matching historical corporate friction points with modern marketing buzzwords:

• The Nazi Germany Chapter (1930s): Rather than ignoring the reality that former long-serving Shell chief Sir Henri Deterding backed the Third Reich, creative teams are mapping out an “Extreme Longevity” campaign. The angle focuses exclusively on “early pioneering transport logistics,” using soft sepia filters to gently blur the distinction between Allied and Axis fuel supply chains.
• The 2004 Reserves Scandal: When investigative reports from The Independent exposed a three-year plan to deceive shareholders by deliberately overstating proven oil and gas reserves by 3.9 billion barrels, exploration chief Walter van de Vijver famously emailed that he was “sick and tired of lying.” MSQ plans to reframe this via LinkedIn thought leadership as a pioneering corporate wellness moment where an executive felt safe expressing vulnerability. The missing oil will be rebranded as an early experiment in “Virtual Asset Architecture” and “Proactive Asset Manifestation.”
• The Sakhalin-II Siberian Debacle: The massive liquefied natural gas project, which was heavily mired in environmental protests regarding whale populations before Shell ceded control, will be transformed into a luxury eco-influencer travel series titled “Siberian Whispers.” The content will focus entirely on beautifully rendered, digitally generated Siberian cranes nesting near deactivated drill bits.
• The Worker Safety Record: Decades of friction with unions and watchdogs over high-risk offshore operations and community health impacts in regions like Ogoniland will be addressed via a high-concept employee wellness initiative. Branded VR headsets will overlay virtual tropical forests onto heavy industrial drilling platforms.

“Ethical Agility” in the Creative Department According to an anonymous copywriter at The Gate, the biggest win was reframing the massive executive payouts during historical corporate crises. Sir Philip Watts’ multi-million-pound exit package is being pitched to the market not as a “fat cat reward,” but as the ultimate masterclass in setting personal boundaries and corporate self-care. When questioned by trade journalists on whether the strategy is growing too grim for consumer advertising, an executive close to the pitch defended the tone. “Look, ad-land loves a challenge,” he said, requesting anonymity while adjusting a lapel pin featuring a stylized, carbon-neutral scallop shell. “Anyone can market a trendy oat milk. But it takes true, unadulterated marketing genius to take a corporate entity that fueled both sides of the Blitz, fabricated a quarter of its global assets, and then turn it into a curated lifestyle brand for people who drive hybrid SUVs. It’s not dark—it’s narrative transformation.” When asked how the agency plans to balance its own sustainability pledges with its new client, an internal memo leaked from MSQ offered a comforting reminder to staff: “Remember, carbon offsetting is a state of mind. For every heavy-industrial oil campaign we print in real life, a digital tree is planted in our corporate metaverse. We’re doing our part.” At press time, MSQ teams were seen reviewing an AI-generated script for a corporate apology video, searching for a synonym for “systemic deception” that sounds like “an unexpected journey toward sustainability.” MSQ Unveils Brand New ‘Industrial-Strength Air Freshener’ Division Following Shell Appointment was first posted on September 21, 2026 at 10:09 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

Who's Kenn? Simply put, Kenn is a national treasure. A renowned birder, author, and conservationist, Kenn Kaufman has spent his life dedicated to observing birds, reading about birds, writing...

Just west of the Houston metropolis, the Katy Prairie Preserve hosts more than 300 native bird species. Among the 20,000 acres of Texas grassland, wetland, and working land is an unusual site, called...

For Immediate Release:

September 21, 2026

Contact:
Ashley Castaneda, ashley@restorethedelta.org

SACRAMENTO — Today, the Delta Tribal Environmental Coalition (DTEC)—consisting of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Little Manila Rising, and Restore the Delta— submitted comments on the updated San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan (“Bay-Delta Plan”), a critical policy guiding water quality, river flows, and ecosystem protections for the state’s largest and most fragile estuary. 

The updated plan drew immediate opposition from the coalition for failing to make meaningful changes to address longstanding Tribal, environmental justice, and ecological concerns. 

“Protection of Tribal sovereignty and beneficial water uses cannot be achieved through approval of voluntary agreements that excluded tribes. This is the Board’s final opportunity to reverse course and do the right thing,” said Vice Chair Malissa Tayaba, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

Among DTEC’s central concerns is the plan’s reliance on Voluntary Agreements (VAs), privately negotiated deals allowing powerful water districts to offer limited flow commitments and funding in exchange for exemptions from stronger, enforceable regulatory requirements. 

Tribal, environmental justice, and conservation groups have raised concerns that the VA approach is not scientifically sound and does not provide enforceable protections needed to safeguard Delta ecosystems and communities. The framework has also faced growing uncertainty, with the Bureau of Reclamation and Westlands Water District threatening to withdraw.

“The update to the Bay-Delta Plan comes at one of the most crucial moments for our fragile Bay-Delta estuary, and yet the Plan once again fails to meet the moment. This latest iteration again seeks to move forward the inequitable and environmentally damaging voluntary agreements, which will only further ecosystem decline, harming communities, tribes, Delta economies, and fishing communities,” said Morgen Snyder, Director of Policy and Programs at Restore the Delta. “Swapping voluntary agreements for a regulatory backstop with minimum flow requirements misses the point – flows are habitat, and without adequate flows, fish populations will continue to decline, harmful algal blooms will proliferate, and our communities will suffer.” 

DTEC maintains that the State Water Board has failed to remedy deficiencies previously identified in the draft Plan. Among DTEC’s chief concerns are:

• Procedural violations, including advancing the updated plan while a federal Title VI investigation into discriminatory water management practices remains open.
• Discriminatory effects, including the omission of enforceable harmful algal bloom standards and meaningful instream flow requirements that could result in unlawful discriminatory effects on Tribes and communities of color.
• Failure to analyze the project as a whole and to base the environmental analysis on a stable project description, including how voluntary agreements would operate and the potential influence of major infrastructure operations that have not been accounted for.
• Failure to conduct government to government Tribal consultation required under AB 52.
• Public trust violations and unreasonable timelines that undermine meaningful public participation and effective protection of Delta resources. 

“After taking thirty years to update the Bay Delta Plan, the State Water Resources Control Board’s latest update will only further devastate fish populations, increase environmental damage, and cater to elite special interests through the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes (VAs) proposals. This is not a plan that protects beneficial uses for all Californians, it is a plan that kowtows to political pressure and elite special interests,” said Gary Mulcahy, Government Liaison with the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. 

“The final update to the Bay-Delta Plan is another opportunity for the water board to honor public trust and stand for the protection of our natural resources against the interest of private governing bodies,” said Gloria Alonso Cruz, Environmental Justice Advocacy Coordinator with Little Manila Rising. “The VAs perpetuate the systemic inequities manifested across our landscapes, inequities that those with the least access to clean and safe waterways are too familiar with. The public must urge the board to renounce the VAs and instead pursue science-based solutions that demonstrate a real commitment to environmental justice over private interests.”

The State Water Board is scheduled to consider adoption of the updated Bay-Delta Plan at a hearing on October 28-29. Learn how you can make a public comment.

###

 

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-064 The Sakhalin Papers LIV: The Russian LNG Contract That Survived — Shell Announced Its Exit in 2022. Its 2025 Accounts Still List the Novatek Deal In March 2022, Shell announced that it intended to withdraw from all Russian hydrocarbons, including LNG. Yet a long-term contract signed with Novatek in 2015 survived the withdrawal from Sakhalin, survived the disposal of Shell’s Russian retail business, and was still being reported by Shell in its 2025 Form 20-F, published in March 2026. Shell confirmed in 2023 that it was continuing to receive Yamal LNG cargoes under the agreement. The latest accounts confirm that the contract still exists — but do not establish whether Shell is still physically taking cargoes today. New European and British restrictions now place a significant regulatory deadline at the beginning of 2027.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-064
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: NOVATEK contract announcement, 4 June 2015; Shell Russia statements, February–March 2022; Shell Annual Reports 2022–2025; UK sanctions regulations and guidance; EU REPowerEU gas regulation
Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, Interfax and Argus
Evidence standard: The existence of Shell’s long-term Novatek contract is established by Shell’s latest SEC filing. Continued physical receipt of Yamal LNG was confirmed by Shell in February 2023. No public evidence located for this instalment establishes that Shell continues taking individual Yamal cargoes in September 2026. Those are separate propositions and are treated separately below.

Introduction

Yesterday’s file followed the Sakhalin LNG contract that disappeared.

Today’s concerns the Russian LNG contract that did not.

On 4 June 2015, Novatek announced that its trading subsidiary, Novatek Gas & Power, had signed a long-term LNG agreement with:

Shell International Trading Middle East.

The quantity was approximately:

900,000 tonnes a year

for:

more than 20 years.

The LNG would come from the Yamal LNG project in the Russian Arctic. (Novatek)

Seven years later, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Shell announced that it intended to withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons.

The Sakhalin LNG contract subsequently collapsed.

The Novatek contract did not.

And Shell’s most recent annual filing still lists it.

1. The contract was signed when Russia was “of great importance” to Shell

The original Novatek announcement remains online.

It records that Novatek Gas & Power, a wholly owned Novatek trading subsidiary, signed the agreement with Shell International Trading Middle East on 4 June 2015.

The annual volume was approximately 0.9 million tonnes of LNG and the duration was more than twenty years. (Novatek)

At the time, Shell Vice-President of LNG Trading David Wells described Russia as:

“a country of great importance for Shell.”

That statement belonged to an entirely different geopolitical period.

Yamal LNG had not yet started production.

Shell was positioning itself as a major customer of Russia’s emerging Arctic LNG industry.

Argus contemporaneously described the agreement as a 20-year supply contract for about 900,000 tonnes annually from the planned 16.5-million-tonne-per-year Yamal project. (Argus Media)

2. This was not a Shell-owned LNG project

The distinction from Sakhalin is fundamental.

At Sakhalin II, Shell had been a shareholder and project participant as well as an LNG purchaser.

At Yamal, Shell’s relationship was commercial.

The seller was Novatek Gas & Power.

Shell International Trading Middle East was the buyer.

The LNG originated from Yamal LNG.

Shell did not need an equity interest in the producing project to incorporate those cargoes into its global LNG trading portfolio.

That portfolio structure matters because Shell buys substantial volumes of LNG from third parties and trades them alongside LNG produced by projects in which it owns equity.

Shell’s 2022 Annual Report described exactly that model: term purchases, third-party supplies, shipping flexibility and the ability to redirect cargoes between customers and markets.

3. Then came 8 March 2022

Twelve days after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Shell issued a major public announcement.

On 8 March 2022, Shell said it intended to withdraw from involvement in:

all Russian hydrocarbons, including crude oil, petroleum products, gas and LNG.

But the announcement contained an important qualification.

The withdrawal would occur:

“in a phased manner.”

(Shell)

Shell’s immediate action was to stop spot purchases of Russian crude oil.

The company did not announce that every pre-existing long-term Russian supply agreement had been cancelled that day.

That distinction subsequently became central to the Novatek contract.

4. “Phased withdrawal” did not mean every contract vanished

The practical problem was contractual.

A corporate decision to withdraw from a country does not necessarily extinguish long-term commercial obligations.

Shell could dispose of an equity investment.

It could close a retail operation.

It could stop making spot purchases.

But long-term sales-and-purchase agreements may contain obligations extending for decades, together with termination provisions, force-majeure provisions, governing-law clauses and dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Those contractual terms are not publicly available for the Shell-Novatek agreement.

Accordingly, this archive cannot state that Shell was free simply to walk away from it in March 2022.

Nor can it state that Shell was legally compelled to continue indefinitely.

The contract itself has not been published.

5. Shell stopped buying Russian LNG on the spot market

Shell’s later reporting makes an important distinction.

After its March 2022 announcement, Shell ceased spot purchases of Russian LNG.

It also allowed various oil, oil-product and pipeline-gas arrangements to expire.

But two long-term Russian LNG contracts remained at the end of 2022.

One concerned Sakhalin.

The other concerned Novatek and Yamal LNG. (Interfax)

This distinction between spot transactions and long-term contractual purchases explains much of what otherwise appears contradictory.

Shell was withdrawing.

But some legacy contracts continued to exist.

6. In February 2023 Shell confirmed that Yamal cargoes were still arriving

This is the strongest public evidence that the Novatek contract was not merely an accounting relic.

On 2 February 2023, a Shell spokesperson told Reuters that Shell was:

still receiving Russian LNG cargoes under its long-term Novatek contract.

Reuters identified the arrangement as the more-than-20-year agreement for approximately 900,000 tonnes annually from Yamal LNG. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

Interfax reported the same contractual distinction.

Shell was no longer receiving cargoes from Sakhalin.

But the Novatek/Yamal agreement remained. (Interfax)

This was therefore not simply a dormant contract sitting on Shell’s books in early 2023.

Shell publicly acknowledged continuing performance.

7. The contrast with Sakhalin could hardly be clearer

By February 2023, Shell had two very different Russian LNG stories.

Sakhalin

Cargoes had stopped.

Shell was examining its legal position.

Shell subsequently concluded that the old Sakhalin Energy company had renounced the contract through non-performance and that the agreement stood terminated.

Yamal

Cargoes were still being received.

The Novatek contract remained in force.

That divergent treatment is documented in Shell’s own subsequent filings. (SEC)

Whatever the broader political policy of withdrawing from Russian hydrocarbons, the two long-term LNG contracts followed completely different legal paths.

8. Shell continued disclosing the Novatek contract

The annual-report trail is unusually revealing.

Shell’s 2023 Form 20-F said:

“Shell still holds one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity.” (SEC)

Shell’s 2024 Form 20-F repeated the disclosure. (SEC)

Then came the 2025 Form 20-F, filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on 12 March 2026.

Again Shell stated that in 2022 it had announced its intention to withdraw in a phased manner from all Russian hydrocarbons.

Again it recorded its residual Sakhalin shareholding.

And again it stated:

“Shell still holds one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity.”

(SEC)

Four years after the withdrawal announcement, the contract remained sufficiently relevant to be disclosed in Shell’s principal annual regulatory filing.

9. What the 2025 filing does — and does not — establish

The wording needs to be read precisely.

Shell says it holds the contract.

That establishes the continuing contractual relationship.

But the filing does not say:

how many Yamal cargoes Shell received in 2025;

whether it received any in early 2026;

where any cargoes were delivered;

what Shell paid for them;

what profits or losses arose;

whether the contract has been amended;

or whether Shell and Novatek are negotiating its termination.

No such conclusions should be inserted into the evidential gap.

The latest authenticated Shell record establishes the existence of the contract.

The latest explicit confirmation located that Shell was physically receiving cargoes dates from February 2023. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

That distinction matters.

10. The UK had already banned Russian LNG from entering Britain

The continuation of Shell’s contract should not be confused with continued importation of Russian LNG into the United Kingdom.

The UK government introduced a prohibition on Russian LNG imports taking effect on:

1 January 2023.

The measure prohibited Russian-origin or Russian-consigned LNG from entering the UK and covered acquisition where the intention was to bring the LNG into Britain. (GOV.UK)

By May 2023, the UK government said Britain had gone a full year without importing Russian gas. (GOV.UK)

Thus a Shell group company holding a Russian LNG purchase contract did not mean those cargoes were entering Britain.

Shell is a global LNG trader.

Cargoes can be marketed internationally.

11. Europe initially took a different route

For several years after the invasion, Russian LNG continued flowing into European markets even while Russian oil and coal faced much broader prohibitions.

That explains why the Novatek contract could remain commercially relevant after February 2022.

The legal position has since changed substantially.

In January 2026, the European Union formally adopted rules providing for a stepwise prohibition on imports of Russian pipeline gas and LNG.

For long-term Russian LNG contracts, the EU prohibition takes effect on:

1 January 2027.

(Council of the European Union)

The regulation specifically provides transitional treatment for existing contracts rather than treating them as though they had ceased to exist retrospectively.

That is particularly relevant to an agreement signed as far back as 2015.

12. Britain has also tightened the LNG transport regime

The United Kingdom has since moved beyond the original prohibition on LNG entering Britain.

In May 2026, the government published a general trade licence concerning new prohibitions on the maritime transportation of Russian LNG and associated services.

The licence expires on:

1 January 2027.

The government also states that an exception exists until that date for certain obligations arising under contracts concluded before 17 June 2025, subject to the regulatory conditions. (GOV.UK)

Whether particular Shell activities fall within any prohibition, licence or exception would depend on the entities, vessels, services, destinations and contractual arrangements involved.

This archive makes no finding on that legal question.

What is established is that both British and EU policy now point toward 1 January 2027 as a major date for Russian LNG trading arrangements.

13. The contract may be much longer than the remaining regulatory window

The original agreement was for more than twenty years.

It was signed in 2015 for LNG from a project expected to start production in 2017.

The publicly available announcement does not provide an exact contractual expiry date.

It is therefore unsafe to manufacture one.

But a contract of more than twenty years was plainly intended to continue well beyond 2027 unless terminated or otherwise affected by law. (Novatek)

This creates the central tension now visible in the documentary record:

commercial contract duration versus sanctions and regulatory withdrawal deadlines.

A contract drafted to operate for decades is encountering a legal environment that changed fundamentally within a few years.

14. There is no identified public court battle over the Yamal agreement

The Sakhalin story has generated litigation.

The Gazprom Export pipeline-gas dispute has generated a pending Moscow claim of approximately €1.5 billion.

No comparable publicly identified court judgment or arbitral award concerning the Shell-Novatek Yamal LNG purchase contract has been located for this instalment.

That does not prove there has been no confidential negotiation or arbitration.

LNG contracts frequently provide for private dispute resolution.

What can be said is narrower:

Shell continues to report the contract rather than reporting it as terminated.

That makes the position markedly different from the Sakhalin contract.

15. Yamal LNG must not be confused with Arctic LNG 2

There is another important distinction.

The Shell contract discussed here concerns:

Yamal LNG.

It should not be confused with Novatek’s newer:

Arctic LNG 2.

The projects have different ownership structures, histories and sanctions exposure.

Yamal LNG entered production years before the invasion.

Arctic LNG 2 became a major target of subsequent Western sanctions.

Shell’s 2015 long-term contract specifically referred to LNG from Yamal LNG. (Novatek)

Conflating the two would distort both the contractual and sanctions history.

16. Why did this Russian contract survive when Sakhalin did not?

The public record supports several factual distinctions.

The Sakhalin operator was forcibly restructured by presidential decree.

The old Sakhalin counterparty stopped performing Shell’s LNG purchase agreement.

Shell consequently treated that contract as renounced and terminated.

No equivalent cessation of performance has been publicly established for the Novatek agreement.

Indeed, Shell expressly confirmed in February 2023 that Yamal cargoes were still being received. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

The simplest documentary explanation is therefore also the safest:

Sakhalin stopped performing. Novatek did not — at least as of the last public confirmation of physical deliveries.

The later regulatory environment may ultimately determine what happens next.

Documentary Findings Established

On 4 June 2015, Novatek Gas & Power signed a long-term LNG supply contract with Shell International Trading Middle East. (Novatek)

The contract provided approximately 900,000 tonnes of Yamal LNG annually for more than twenty years. (Novatek)

On 8 March 2022, Shell announced its intention to withdraw in a phased manner from all Russian hydrocarbons, expressly including LNG. (Shell)

Shell ceased Russian LNG spot purchases but retained long-term contractual relationships. (Interfax)

In February 2023, a Shell spokesperson confirmed to Reuters that Shell was still receiving Russian LNG cargoes under the Novatek contract. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

Shell’s Sakhalin LNG contract subsequently terminated following non-performance by its counterparty, while the Novatek contract remained.

Shell’s 2023, 2024 and 2025 annual regulatory filings all continued to identify one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity. (SEC)

Shell filed its 2025 Form 20-F on 12 March 2026. (Shell)

The UK prohibited Russian LNG imports into Britain from 1 January 2023. (GOV.UK)

The EU has adopted a prohibition on Russian LNG imports under long-term contracts taking effect from 1 January 2027. (Council of the European Union)

The UK has also introduced restrictions concerning maritime transport of Russian LNG, with transitional provisions and a general licence running until 1 January 2027. (GOV.UK)

Established only to February 2023

Shell was physically receiving Yamal LNG cargoes under the Novatek agreement.

The Reuters report attributes that information directly to a Shell spokesperson. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

Not established

It is not established from the public material examined for this file that Shell is physically receiving Yamal LNG cargoes in September 2026.

It is not established how many cargoes Shell received after February 2023.

It is not established where any subsequent cargoes were delivered.

It is not established what revenue, profit or loss Shell derived from the contract after the invasion.

It is not established whether the contract has since been amended.

It is not established that Shell is in breach of British, European or other sanctions.

It is not established that Novatek is in breach of the contract.

It is not established that Shell has commenced arbitration or litigation concerning the agreement.

It is not established what will happen to the contract when the new European and British restrictions reach their January 2027 stage.

Commentary

The importance of this contract lies less in accusation than in chronology.

Shell’s public statement in March 2022 was easily understood as:

Shell is leaving Russian hydrocarbons.

But contracts operate differently from headlines.

Four years later, Shell’s own SEC filing still records a Russian LNG purchase agreement.

That does not demonstrate deception.

It demonstrates how complicated an actual corporate withdrawal can be.

Assets can be sold.

Joint ventures can be abandoned.

Retail businesses can change hands.

Spot purchases can stop immediately.

Long-term contracts are another matter.

They come with counterparties, governing law, contractual remedies and potentially enormous financial consequences if they are broken.

The Novatek agreement appears to be one of the clearest surviving examples of that reality.

The deeper significance

The documentary record now allows a more precise description of Shell’s Russian exit.

Shell did not move from:

Russia

to:

no Russia

on a single date.

Instead, different relationships unwound at different speeds.

Nord Stream 2 ended.

The retail business was sold.

Salym was exited.

Sakhalin operating participation disappeared.

The Sakhalin LNG contract ceased performing and was treated as terminated.

The Gazprom pipeline-gas relationship became litigation.

The old Sakhalin shareholding remained on Shell’s books.

And the Novatek LNG purchase contract survived.

That is the history the annual reports disclose.

The clock is now running toward 2027

There is also a new element that did not exist when this series began reconstructing the post-2022 story.

Governments have now imposed deadlines that may finally overtake the legacy commercial arrangements.

The EU’s date for long-term Russian LNG imports is:

1 January 2027.

British maritime LNG restrictions and current transitional provisions also focus on:

1 January 2027.

Shell’s next annual report should therefore be particularly important.

If the Novatek sentence disappears, changes wording or is accompanied by a termination disclosure, that will be documentary evidence of another stage in Shell’s Russian withdrawal.

Until then, the latest authenticated position is the one Shell itself filed with the SEC:

the long-term Novatek LNG contract still exists.

Source Record

NOVATEK’s original 4 June 2015 announcement records the counterparties, Yamal LNG source, annual volume of approximately 0.9 million tonnes and duration exceeding twenty years. (Novatek)

NOVATEK — Long-term LNG contract with Shell, 4 June 2015

Shell’s 8 March 2022 statement records its intention to withdraw from all Russian hydrocarbons, including LNG, in a phased manner. (Shell)

Shell — Statements concerning withdrawal from Russian oil and gas

Reuters reported on 2 February 2023, citing a Shell spokesperson, that Shell was still receiving cargoes under its long-term Novatek contract. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

Reuters report — Shell still receiving LNG under Novatek contract

Interfax separately documented Shell’s two remaining Russian LNG contracts and the cessation of Sakhalin deliveries. (Interfax)

Interfax — Shell LNG contract position, 2 February 2023

Shell’s 2025 Form 20-F contains the latest authenticated disclosure located for this file: Shell still holds one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity. (SEC)

SEC — Shell Form 20-F 2025

Shell confirmed that the 2025 Form 20-F was filed on 12 March 2026. (Shell)

Shell — 2025 Form 20-F filing announcement

The UK’s 2022 sanctions notice records the prohibition on Russian LNG imports entering into force on 1 January 2023. (GOV.UK)

UK Government — Russian LNG import prohibition

The Council of the European Union records the new transition timetable under which long-term Russian LNG imports are prohibited from 1 January 2027. (Council of the European Union)

Council of the EU — Ending Russian energy imports

The UK government’s May 2026 guidance records maritime-transport restrictions, the general licence expiring on 1 January 2027, and the separate transitional exception for qualifying pre-17 June 2025 contracts. (GOV.UK)

UK Government — Maritime transportation of Russian LNG

Archive disclaimer: This instalment distinguishes between the continuing existence of a contract and evidence of continuing physical deliveries. Shell’s latest SEC filing establishes the former. The latest explicit public confirmation located of Shell receiving Yamal cargoes dates from February 2023. No allegation of sanctions violation is made. Questions concerning the application of sanctions to individual entities, cargoes or services would require transaction-specific legal analysis.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LV: The Scientist Who Walked Away — Rick Steiner, the Independent Review and the Warnings Shell Faced Before Sakhalin II Became a Global Controversy

The modern Russian legal aftermath has now taken us from:

Shell’s 2022 withdrawal

through:

the confiscated Sakhalin operating interest,

the 94-billion-rouble compensation,

the €1.5-billion Gazprom lawsuit,

the vanished Sakhalin LNG contract,

and finally:

the Novatek agreement that survived.

The next file returns to an earlier part of the chronology.

Long before Putin’s 2022 restructuring, an independent scientist examining Sakhalin II was warning about environmental risk, project governance and what he believed the review process was failing adequately to confront.

His name was:

Rick Steiner.

In January 2005, Steiner supplied additional proposed text to the Independent Scientific Review Panel examining Sakhalin II.

Later that year, after the PA-B tow-out episode, he resigned.

His contemporaneous papers have survived.

Some were recently supplied directly to this archive.

The next instalment asks a different question:

What exactly was Rick Steiner warning about in 2004–2005 — what did the independent review ultimately say, what did it leave out, and how did subsequent events compare with those warnings?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 21, 2026 at 8:57 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

This is a re-post from World Weather Attribution

A catastrophic rock-ice avalanche that transitioned into a debris flood in the Himalayas along the Nepal–China border on 26 August 2026 has caused widespread destruction across Nepal and neighbouring regions. In Nepal, at the time of writing (14 September 2026) the disaster has resulted in over 1,300 confirmed deaths, with only a small fraction of victims identified and returned to their families. Over 5,000 people remain missing, around 13,700 people  have been rescued and more than 8,600 people have received medical treatment (NDRRMA, 2026e). About 3,400 people are currently sheltering in holding centres (NDRRMA, 2026a) and an estimated 84,270 people across 17 local levels in the six districts of Rasuwa, Nuwakot, Dhading, Gorkha, Chitwan and Tanahu are affected, with the government declaring 15 municipalities as disaster crisis-hit areas for three months (UNDP, 2026a; MOHA, 2026).

While initial reports suggested that the event may have been caused by an earthquake, later evidence indicates that the recorded seismic activity was actually linked to the rapid collapse of  roughly 2 square kilometers of  rock wall and glacier ice (US Geological Society Earthquake Hazards Program, August 26, 2026; Center for Hydrology and Water Resources Research, 2026). The collapsing material fell approximately 1,400 m, from around 5,150 m above sea level to the valley floor at about 3,750 m. This released a huge amount of energy and produced seismic waves that were initially detected as an earthquake-like signal.

The rock-ice avalanche then triggered a series of processes. As the ice, rock and debris moved rapidly down the mountain, friction and mechanical energy probably caused some of the glacier ice to melt, producing large amounts of meltwater (Le Page, 26 August 2026 [NewScientist]). When the avalanche reached the valley floor, it also hit buried ice, which probably melted and added more water to the debris flood.

Figure 1: Climate-sensitive processes potentially contributing to failure. Conceptual representation of the main mechanisms through which climate variability and climate change may have influenced the stability of the Rasuwa rock wall.  

The resulting debris flood was therefore likely caused by several sources of water, including melting glacier ice, water stored beneath the glacier and in permafrost, ice and water carried within the debris (see fig. 1), and river water pushed ahead of the flow. A wall of water, ice, rock and sediment reached the Rasuwagadhi border, 22 km downstream, within seven minutes, moving at an average speed of 188 km per hour, and wiped out the border facilities, the town of Timure and the Syabrubesi market town within the next quarter of an hour, catching pilgrims, border staff and hydropower workers (CHWRR, 2026; Lord, 2026). Within a further half hour it was in the Trishuli valley at Betrawati, and still moving boulders and pulling multi-storey buildings into the river in Betrawati and Trishuli Bazaar far downstream (CHWRR, 2026; Lord, 2026). The flood travelled 200 km to Devghat in under seven hours, where river flow more than doubled to about 5,850 cubic metres per second, and an estimated 20 million cubic meters of excess water passed in under four hours before the flood continued into India (CHWRR, 2026; Lord, 2026). The water deposited 30.5 million cubic meters of sediment and debris along the corridor, burying agricultural fields, settlements and hydropower plants (NDRRMA, 2026d).

This mixture of water, ice, rock and sediment created a highly destructive debris flood that swept away families, homes, settlements, roads, bridges and other infrastructure along the corridor, leaving survivors stranded and cut off, many having also lost family members and everything they owned more than 35 km downstream while the water travelled much further, at Glachi, 88 km downstream the water level of the river Trishuli rose by 8.5m (Center for Land Surface Hazards, 2026). The extent of the humanitarian catastrophe is still being assessed. 

Researchers from Nepal, Pakistan, the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the US, New Zealand and the Netherlands, including experts in glaciology, mountain hydrology, climate science, humanitarian aid, seismology and social science, have come together to examine the range of factors that may have contributed to this event. While the underlying geological structure controlled where and how the slope failed, longer-term warming and changing precipitation phase from snow to rain may have reduced its stability by weakening ice-filled fractures and rock–ice contacts and increasing water pressure. Climate change is thus best understood as a destabilising factor acting on a pre-existing geological predisposition, rather than the fundamental cause of the failure. Therefore, rather than conducting a conventional attribution study which is typically focused on a single, well-defined weather event, we are bringing together the available scientific knowledge on known and potential drivers, while also investigating how these drivers have changed in a warming climate.

Main Findings 

• Nepal has established early warning systems and adaptation measures that can help reduce impacts from more conventional and forecastable riverine floods, and have demonstrably helped save lives, including among communities downstream. However, the event was fundamentally different in its magnitude, speed and complexity. It was beyond the design and predictive limits of existing risk reduction measures, and no existing early warning system could have provided sufficient lead time or prevented the scale of impacts observed in the worst-affected areas, highlighting the limits of adaptation. In a rapidly warming Himalaya, increasingly extreme and complex hazards are exceeding adaptation capacity, resulting in loss and damage. This is occurring against a baseline of a high frequency of large earthquakes, which both destabilises slopes and hampers recovery from successive disasters.

• The immediate impacts of this cascading hazard were almost entirely dependent on exposure to hazard, whereas longer-term impacts (e.g. related to recovery, long-term health effects) are likely to vary based on socioeconomic vulnerability characteristics of the populations affected. In a high mountain context where habitable land is constrained, population is increasing, and economic activity is dependent on rivers, it would be very socially, economically and politically difficult to eliminate or even substantially reduce exposure in riverine valleys, representing a soft limit to adaptation.  

• The 26 August 2026 Rasuwa disaster was triggered by a large rock wall collapse from the Langtang Lirung mountain at 5,150 m asl., which also caused part of the overlying glacier to collapse. The resulting rock–ice avalanche rapidly transformed into a debris flood and then a water-dominated flash flood that traveled downstream at average speeds of 188 km/hr, causing extensive erosion and sediment deposition. The failure involved an exceptionally large volume of rock and ice that on impact with the ground released energy equivalent to a M5.5 earthquake. There are several possible contributing causes, as outlined in the following points.

• In 2015 an earthquake of magnitude 7.8 triggered a catastrophic rock–ice avalanche at Langtang Lirung and caused widespread damage across the region. Subsequent monitoring shows persistently elevated and, at high elevations, increased landslide activity, suggesting that earthquake shaking may have weakened the underlying rock mass over the long term. Although its specific contribution to the 2026 failure cannot yet be confirmed, the earthquake may have preconditioned the slope for failure, alongside geological and climatic factors.

• Warming and permafrost degradation likely weakened the source rock wall by increasing bedrock temperatures and thawing ice within fractures. Loss of ice bonding reduces fracture strength, while meltwater can increase water pressure and further destabilise pre-existing geological weaknesses. Thus, permafrost degradation may have acted as an additional climate-related factor preconditioning the slope for failure.

• Glaciers in the region have been losing mass for decades at a rate equivalent to more than half a metre of thinning per year. Since 2010 the rate of recession of the Langtang-Lirung glacier extent has accelerated, increasing from 0.5% per annum over the previous two centuries to 1-2.3% per annum in the past 16 years. Glacier thinning and retreat can reduce buttressing and alter stresses within adjacent rock walls, potentially weakening existing fractures and increasing slope instability. Combined with increased meltwater, these processes may have interacted to amplify the compound event. 

• Precipitation can provide an additional short-timescale forcing. As temperatures rise, the rain–snow transition moves upward, increasing the fraction of rain falling as snow at higher elevations. Rain produces an immediate liquid-water input to the slope, whereas snowfall temporarily stores water at the surface. Intense or prolonged rainfall can therefore rapidly increase water supply to fractures and potentially increase fracture-water pressure. At the rock-ice-avalanche location,  stations recorded exceptionally high precipitation during October 2025, which combined with subsequent warmth may have been a source for meltwater during the following spring and monsoon seasons. There is also a tendency of the greater fraction of precipitation falling as rain than snow in recent years. This means there can be an increase in the amount of water stored in the land under the avalanche site, even in the absence of anomalously high total precipitation. 

• Observations show unusually warm conditions before the failure, supporting enhanced snow and ice melt and more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. The slope failure on August 26th occurred against the backdrop of a warm 12 month period from September 2025-August 2026, with the warmest two months of the year (July and August) directly preceding the event also substantially warmer than the climatological average. These conditions were anomalous at the location of the slope failure itself and across the wider Himalayan region.

• We also analysed the height of the 0°C isotherm, finding that it has shifted to higher elevations consistent with global warming, with particularly strong trends observed during the Monsoon and Postmonsoon seasons. This progressive upward retreat of the freezing threshold is on the order of 100m/decade in recent decades in the Monsoon and Postmonsoon season. This is highly relevant as it can contribute to the degradation of high-elevation permafrost, glacial thinning and retreat, the snowfall-rainfall transition, and associated slope instability.

• When analysing how these conditions were different in a 1.4°C cooler preindustrial climate, using the standard WWA attribution framework that compares possible weather in today’s climate with possible weather in a 1.4°C cooler preindustrial climate using climate models and statistical models based on weather observations. We find in all datasets a significant increase in the likelihood and intensity of the very warm July-August temperatures at the gridcell nearest to the slope failure as well as in the wider region with an increase in temperature attributable to human-caused climate change during July and August of about 1.5°C, comparable to the level of global warming. Annually, the attributable increase is larger than global warming, at about 2°C. In individual winter months, the observed increase is as high as 3°C.

• We have not assessed whether this specific rock-ice avalanche would have occurred in the absence of human-induced climate change. Such a direct attribution requires additional evidence linking atmospheric conditions to subsurface temperatures, fracture-water pressures and the mechanical evolution of the slope. However, rapidly rising temperatures at a rate beyond the global mean as a result of fossil fuel emissions increase the likelihood and severity of such hazards in the Himalayas.

• Significant progress in adaptation is needed, particularly through strengthened high Himalaya earth observation, hazard monitoring, risk communication  and transboundary data and knowledge sharing. But events of this magnitude ultimately exceed the limits of adaptation. Addressing unfolding and imminent loss and damage, through recovery and reconstruction support in impacted communities, has now become an unavoidable part of climate response. 

• Minimising future risk requires a rapid transition away from fossil fuel use and delivering on climate finance commitments for adaptation. This is particularly important in the Himalaya and other high mountains, where glacier decline and permafrost degradation are expected to continue even without further warming, meaning that some of the impacts of past warming have yet to fully emerge.

Legacy spills and leaks analyzed in this year’s report raise new questions about decades of undetected pollution

The following release was updated on 9/22/26 to correct these two errors:

In the Wyoming section, the release stated that Merit Energy reported seven spills in 2025. Merit Energy actually reported 30 spills and ranked seventh among Wyoming operators in total spill count in 2025. Merit spilled the most volume of any operator. 

In the Colorado section, the release referenced “a single spill of 445,284 gallons in the Piceance Basin by QB Energy Operating.” The largest single spill was approximately 352,800 gallons of produced water, spilled by QB Energy in the Piceance Basin on December 2, 2025. QB Energy’s total reported spill volume across 46 incidents in 2025 was 445,284 gallons.

DENVER—Each year, the Center for Western Priorities analyzes oil and gas spills reported by companies to state regulators in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico—the top oil and gas producers in the Intermountain West. This year, companies in these states reported over 2,400 liquid spills in 2025, releasing at least 5.8 million gallons of oil, produced water, and other toxic, drilling-related fluids.

This year’s report also reveals a problem regulators are only beginning to understand. In Colorado, the number of spills discovered at well sites during decommissioning has grown sharply over the past several years, from 125 in 2020 to 1,948 in 2025, a more than fifteen-fold increase. Since 2016, operators and regulators have identified 6,084 of these legacy contamination sites. These are spills that were missed by operators for years before a well was plugged. Weld County alone accounts for 87 percent of the total, and three companies, Noble Energy, Kerr-McGee, and PDC Energy, are tied to more than three-quarters of these historical spills. Fewer than one percent of these spills and leaks were caught by routine state inspections; the rest surfaced only when a well was being decommissioned.

The magnitude of these historical spills dwarfs what shows up in the state’s annual spill reporting: the 6,084 legacy spills uncovered since 2016 already outnumber the 3,642 spills Colorado has logged through its standard annual reporting system since 2017, revealing that most spills go unreported despite the state’s strong reporting requirements. This implies the actual scale of spills and leaks is much bigger than this report captures, not just for Colorado, but in all three states.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from report co-author and Communications Director Kate Groetzinger:

“Across all three states, a pattern is consistent: spill counts can rise or fall year to year, but the volume of oil, produced water, and methane released into the region’s air, soil, and waterways remains substantial, and thanks to the Colorado historical spill data, decades of contamination is only now coming to light.

“While increased regulations seem to have had some effect in curbing methane waste in New Mexico, oil and gas production still generates significant air pollution that Westerners shouldn’t be forced to live with. With the Trump administration pushing even more oil and gas drilling on public lands, this problem is set to increase rather than improve. We could be building out clean energy. Instead, we’re doubling down on dirty oil and gas production.”

In New Mexico, oil and gas companies reported 1,277 liquid spills in 2025, up 13 percent from 1,133 the year before, totaling 3.56 million gallons, a 75 percent jump from 2024. Nearly half of that volume, 1.66 million gallons, came from a single incident: an OXY USA produced-water storage tank failure. Removing that spill brings New Mexico’s 2025 volume below 2024’s. Oil and gas companies in New Mexico also reported 37,207 gas releases, wasting 9.8 billion cubic feet of methane, enough to heat roughly 127,000 average American homes for an entire year.

In Wyoming, companies reported 786 spills in 2025, down from 825 in 2024. The total volume spilled in Wyoming fell 21 percent, from 1.81 million to 1.43 million gallons, driven mostly by a drop in produced water releases. Converse and Campbell counties, both in the Powder River Basin, accounted for 39 percent of the state’s incidents. Crowheart Energy reported the most spills of any operator, at 102, while Merit Energy spilled the most volume, at 303,565 gallons.

In Colorado, oil and gas companies reported 338 spills in 2025, the fewest since the state began tracking in 2017 and down 11 percent from 378 in 2024. But the volume spilled nearly doubled from 2024 to 2025, from 436,000 to 794,000 gallons, largely because of a single spill of 352,800 gallons in the Piceance Basin by QB Energy Operating—almost half of the total volume spilled in Colorado in 2025. As in past years, roughly half of all spills statewide occurred in Weld County.

The full report, including state-by-state data on operators, counties, and fluid types, is available at the following links:

• Overview 2025

• Colorado 2025

• Colorado Historical Spills

• New Mexico 2025

• Wyoming 2025

The post ANALYSIS: Annual report finds at least 2,400 oil and gas spills occurred across Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico in 2025 appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

It is mid-September, and with rain falling nearly every day in Southwest Florida, it may be difficult for many people to believe that we can still be in a drought, but Audubon’s long-term data from...

New wind, solar and battery hybrid project seeks environmental approval near a wheatbelt town emerging as the latest hotspot for renewable energy projects.

The post Rare wind, solar and battery hybrid seeks environmental approvals in new renewables hotspot appeared first on Renew Economy.

If you're ready to dip your toe into the thrilling world of pelagic birding, consider these four outings around the country, from the classic to the underappreciated.Bar Harbor, Maine23888On the East...

Sooner or later, most birders feel it: the tug of the horizon. It might start with a page in a field guide unmarked by your typical observation notes. It may be a tempting eBird report filled with...

A panel of judges today sided with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation) and Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Western Environmental Law Center, ordering the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to rewrite a portion of a controversial water quality certification, effectively delaying construction of the proposed Goldendale Energy Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project at Pushpum, a sacred site known to the Yakama Nation as “mother of all roots.”

Rye Development, backed by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, proposes to permanently destroy Pushpum, part of the Columbia Hills located along the Columbia River near the John Day Dam, by building the Goldendale Pumped Storage development, the largest such development proposal in the Pacific Northwest.

“As the court found, the Washington Department of Ecology failed to protect the Columbia River,“ said Andrew Hawley, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “Now the agency has a second chance to right not only that wrong, but to also use its authority under the law to address the significant impacts this ill-conceived project will impose on the Columbia River, its tributaries, groundwater, the Yakama Nation, and other Tribes impacted by the development.”

The Goldendale Pumped Storage development threatens the sacred land, medicines, and traditions of Pushpum, a Yakama Nation sacred site for ceremonies, legends, and gathering of traditional roots and medicines. As a natural seed bank, this site contains rich biodiversity in plant and animal life that can never be fully restored once removed.

The project area is within ceded lands of Yakama Nation, and the area has historically been used by the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe for hunting, traditional gathering, fishing, camping, and traditional ceremonies.

“Clean, renewable energy is essential to protecting our planet,” said Columbia Riverkeeper Senior Attorney Simone Anter. “Yet, state and federal governments are violating Treaty-reserved rights and ignoring Tribal sovereignty in order to license projects aimed at supporting energy-hungry data centers—not a just transition from fossil fuels.”

Opposition to the Goldendale Pumped Storage development has steadily increased since the project was proposed in 2017, with a growing coalition of climate and environmental groups and community activists voicing serious concerns. In Washington, 18 federally recognized Tribes have come out against this development. Both the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) have issued resolutions opposing the destruction of Pushpum.

Today’s ruling is a step toward correcting course and protecting Pushpum, and challenges to the project continue to mount. Despite the lack of comprehensive consultation and the trivialization of cultural resource destruction through inadequate proposed mitigation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the final hydroelectric license for the development in January 2026. Columbia Riverkeeper and Yakama Nation both filed petitions for judicial review at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Resources:

• Photos from May 8, 2026 Protect Pushpum Encampment event
• Columbia Riverkeeper’s backgrounder
• Yakama Nation’s public-facing site with written and video materials on the Yakama Nation Perspective on the pump storage development
• FERC Issues Decision to Permanently Destroy Sacred Tribal Cultural Properties, January 23, 2026
• Questions & Answers : Goldendale Pumped Storage, May 5, 2025
• Opposition to the Goldendale Pumped Storage Development Continues to Grow, August 15, 2024
• FERC Ignores Tribal, Environmental Concerns, February 8, 2024
• Ecology’s Previous 401 Denial, June 2021

Background:
In January, the State of Washington’s Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) issued an order upholding Ecology’s water quality certification for the project. Columbia Riverkeeper, represented by Western Environmental Law Center, quickly challenged the order at the Washington State Court of Appeals. Oral arguments took place in February.

Despite receiving a license from FERC, the project still needs a final signed Historic Properties Management Plan and several permits, including from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, before it can break ground.

Contacts: 

Andrew Hawley, Western Environmental Law Center, 406-324-7569, hawley@westernlaw.org

Simone Anter, Columbia Riverkeeper, 541-399-5312, simone@columbiariverkeeper.org

The post Court orders changes to controversial water quality certification, delaying destruction of sacred Tribal resources appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

Have you heard about the dangerous Summit Carbon pipeline proposed across the state of Nebraska?

WHAT: Landowners Meeting: Know Your Rights!

WHEN: Wednesday, Oct. 7, 6:00 p.m. CT

Join by computer: Click at 6pm: https://bit.ly/summitnebraska

Join by phone: 312-626-6799
MEETING ID: 895 7619 3073

Summit Carbon Solutions would have to use eminent domain to route a dangerous pipeline carrying carbon dioxide (CO2), a known asphyxiant, across the entire state of Nebraska.

An attorney and organizers with the Nebraska Easement Action Team landowners’ legal co-op will provide an overview of the project, explain landowners’ rights, and answer questions.

The Nebraska Easement Action Team (NEAT), a project of Bold, works to educate landowners and to support organizing those who are opposed to eminent domain for private gain, providing property rights education, and strategic landowner legal challenges to proposed pipeline projects, including constitutional challenges and condemnation litigation.

On September 7, 2026 the green movement lost one of our finest champions. David Cobb was an activist, organizer, leader, mentor, friend, loving husband, and as he described himself, “I’m a straight-up revolutionary, y’all.” 

David identified as a revolutionary because he knew that our current society is fundamentally racist, sexist, classist, imperialist, and leading to the destruction of the natural world. Therefore, he believed that the system can’t just be reformed, it must be transformed. He dedicated his life to fight for an ecological future in which all people have their basic needs met and have the opportunity to achieve their desires and aspirations. 

Watch David’s talk at the Institute for Social Ecology’s 2026 intensive Land and Liberation.

I first met David in 2022 in Vermont at the Ecosocialism From Below event put on by his organization the People’s Network for Land and Liberation (PNLL) in collaboration with Cooperation Vermont and  the Institute for Social Ecology. One afternoon, David sat out outside with a group of young activists (including myself) in our teens and twenties and answered every single question we excitedly threw at him about capitalism, socialism, the Left, tactics and strategy, cooperatives, and more. What struck me was not only his ability to communicate complex ideas in simple language with his folksy flair, but also that he treated all of us newcomers to the movement with such a high degree of respect and humility. He made us feel like we were worth his time and that he believed that each one of us had the potential to sit where he was sitting one day, teaching the next generation. 

A couple of years later he became my mentor. David saw potential in me and wanted to foster my growth as an organizer and revolutionary. He mentored dozens of others over the years as well, knowing that revolutions are made not by great leaders but by collective movements. He put the time in to share his knowledge and wisdom because he believed in our ability to make a difference. Over the course of this mentorship relationship, I gained more and more respect and affection for David. Of course he was very accomplished. He was the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate, a key figure in countless left-green causes from the 1980’s – 2020’s, and more recently the co-coordinator of the US Solidarity Economy Network and key leader in the People’s Network for Land Liberation. But what mattered more to David than these accomplishments was the cause for the free and ecological future that we all deserve. He dedicated his life to the movement because he believed that a revolution is both possible and necessary. He was the most genuine and caring person I ever met.

In his many speaking engagements about his work with PNLL, David would say that their five point plan was “the special sauce, not the secret sauce.” He wanted to set an example for people to create change in their own communities, because he knew lasting social change must come from the bottom-up. He inspired literally thousands of people to follow in his footsteps and become straight-up revolutionaries. Over the years David utilized many organizing strategies including elections, ballot initiatives, solidarity economy projects, mass demonstrations, and most recently, land based prefigurations of community ownership. Through all this work he demonstrated flexibility and commitment to a dialectical approach to social change. Being an electoral green in the 1990’s and 2000’s David had conflicts and debates with social ecologists, as social ecologists were some of the most prominent anti-electoral greens. But despite these occasional disagreements about strategy, David shared the underlying vision for revolutionary transformation and has thus remained in unity and struggle with social ecologists over the years. 

When I think about David, I think about someone who wore his heart on his sleeve. When speaking about the future we are fighting for, he would get teary eyed and choked up because he felt so deeply the wounds inflicted on our beautiful planet by the capitalist system. This love of beauty was reflected in this importance he gave to the place of art and culture in the movement. One of his favorite stories to tell was of one of his “mentors”, a five year old child who reminded him despite his lack of drawing skills, “everyone’s an artist, David.” He would bring this up in almost every single one of his talks because he knew that centering creativity and expression is central to the revolutionary project. 

For me and for hundreds of others, David was a sounding board, and confidant, a mentor, and a friend. He was someone you could call when times got tough or you needed some inspiration and advice. He opened up so many opportunities as he was always willing to put his expansive network to use for projects he believed in. For example, the ISE’s 2026 intensive Land and Liberation organized in collaboration with Native Roots Network was in part born out of an introduction email that David sent. Check out his talk at the intensive here.

David left us too soon. Like so many others, I was utterly shocked and devastated when I heard the news of his passing. I was expecting to be able to lean on David for years to come. My heart especially goes out to his loving wife and partner Ruthi. 

David was not just a builder and fighter for social change, he was also a loving husband and son. He leaves behind a wife and elder mother who need care. David touched many people in his life with his work. This is our opportunity to give back to David by supporting his family care needs. Please donate what you can to support David’s closest loved ones.

Support David Cobb’s Family

I miss you so much David. We honor you by fighting like you did!

Onward to the future that we deserve!

Rob Persons
ISE Development Director

The post Tribute to David Cobb appeared first on Institute for Social Ecology.

Within six weeks this summer, three competing visions for governing artificial intelligence took concrete shape: the U.S. State Department hosted its second Pax Silica Summit, the United Nations convened its Global Dialogue on AI Governance, and 29 countries signed an agreement in Shanghai establishing the Chinese-led World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO).

In a new report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Cascade Institute fellow Christopher Collins and Aalok Mehta, director of the CSIS Wadhwani AI Center, argue that the United States is now in an institutional race to lead global AI governance — and that China’s offer to middle powers is an attractive one. Ahead of the September 24 U.S.-China talks on AI safety, they urge U.S. policymakers to pursue a focused safety agenda, treat verification as a technical program rather than a diplomatic issue, and build a domestic model of AI governance worth exporting.

Collins is a fellow with the Polycrisis Program at the Cascade Institute and a senior associate (non-resident) with the Wadhwani AI Center at CSIS.

Read the full report at CSIS.

The post The State of AI Global Governance and Its Implications for the U.S.-China Summit appeared first on Cascade Institute.

Although it’s just the surface of what we can appreciate about birds, the astounding variety of colorful plumage in the avian world is easy to admire. So if you’re in the market for your next...

Food waste is a global climate, food security, and economic challenge. From farms and commercial kitchens to households and landfills, roughly one-third of all food produced globally is lost or wasted, costing the global economy roughly US$1 trillion annually and driving 8 to 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, an estimated 1 in 11 people face chronic hunger and undernourishment worldwide.

With this in mind, “food waste belongs at the center of the conversation on climate action,” says Martin Krause, Director of the Climate Change Division at UNEP. 

Krause spoke at “Solving Food Waste is a Key Solution to the Climate Crisis,” a Food Tank Summit at Climate Week NYC, held in partnership with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Food Planet Prize, NRDC, Restaurant Technologies, CookUnity, and Mill. Throughout the morning, speakers agreed that addressing food waste requires action across the food system, from agricultural production and government policy to businesses and households.

Speakers emphasized the importance of preventing waste at the farm level—where unharvested surplus crops, strict cosmetic standards, and economic factors can sometimes make it unprofitable or impractical to pick and sell everything that is grown.

U.S. Representative Andrea Salinas (D-OR) points to the financial pressures that force farmers to waste food: “A lot of our growers are leaving their crops in the fields or orchards. Some of it is it just isn’t going to pencil out for them to harvest…This is all food that should not be wasted,” says Salinas.

Yet food waste prevention at the farm level “is what keeps the most carbon in the ground and keeps the most people alive,” says Veleké Brown, CEO of E-RoadMap and Velloris and Executive Director of E-RoadMap Corporation. “When we talk about food waste, most people work at the end of the line moving surplus, but my work is upstream where the waste is quieter.”

U.S. Representative Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) says reducing food waste also requires examining how food is distributed and who has access to it.

“Part of why you have food waste is because farmers are producing agricultural products they’re selling nationally and internationally, and local people who are hungry cannot get their hands on that food. We have not, as a country, made it a policy priority to address this,” says Stansbury. “We cannot talk about food waste without talking about fixing the food system.” 

Food recovery can help connect surplus food with communities experiencing food insecurity, but speakers say that donations must meet people’s needs.

“Even if you do all this work to donate the excess food, if it isn’t intentional and what people want, it just ends up in the trash,” says Matthew Jozwiak, Founder and CEO of Rethink Food.

And strong partnerships are necessary to expand food recovery efforts, says María Bengochea, Director of Sustainability & Standards at CookUnity.

“We are suffering from many climate crises…we need to unlock emergency donations for people who are suffering from this. It’s important to have strong partners who are really committed,” says Bengochea.

Especially at a time when fuel and grocery prices are at historic highs across the world, speakers say that communicating with consumers about food waste prevention must point to the financial benefits.

“Reducing methane emissions might not land with people, but reducing their grocery bill will,” says Tia Schwab, Senior Manager of U.S. Food Systems at C40 Cities

And for Madeline Keating of NRDC, infrastructure and education are critical components of making any food waste production effort successful. If the compost stream is contaminated or there are not enough facilities to process it, then efforts to increase composting practices will be wasted.

“Cities can realize the most cost savings from reducing food waste when they look at their entire waste system. But a really critical piece is education,” says Keating.

In commercial kitchens, this also means engaging employees at every level. 

“It really just comes down to the actions of the chefs and making sure everyone from hourly associates to executive chefs knows what they need to do in their specific roles,” says Gwyneth Rampton, Vice President of Sustainability at Compass Group USA.

And at the retail level, Jackie Suggitt, Senior Director of Waste & Circularity at Walmart, calls for faster implementation of solutions that already exist.

“Let’s not wait for the next thing to come along and fix all the problems…we have enough to be moving and moving quickly,” says Suggitt. “I would like to see us implement at scale faster. People love pilots…we need to move past that.”

As speakers emphasized throughout the event, reducing food waste requires coordinated action across the food system. From preventing waste on farms and connecting surplus food with communities to improving infrastructure and changing consumer behavior, existing solutions can help move the food system toward greater sustainability.

“We do have the solutions; let’s implement them,” says Krause.

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.

The post “Food Waste Belongs at the Center” of Talks at Climate Week NYC appeared first on Food Tank.

According to Bloomberg on Monday, California State Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state attorneys general have reached a settlement of their antitrust lawsuit against Paramount Skydance’s $111 billion takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery.

According to the report, the settlement creates a nominally independent editorial board to oversee CNN and CBS, and makes promises on the output of the combined studios’ movie production. Bloomberg does not report any divestitures of the merged companies’ massive cable channel portfolio.

These minor concessions are largely unenforceable behavioral remedies that Bonta had previously denounced, and in some cases promise less than the two companies are already doing as standalone competitors. They came after Paramount owner David Ellison made multiple threats to move the studio out of California unless the attorneys general dropped their lawsuit. Previously, Bonta had maintained he’d only accept structural remedies, which block the merger or involve companies selling off significant parts of the combined businesses.

In August, California Governor Gavin Newsom indicated that he’d like Bonta to settle the case, despite growing public concern over the many harms such a deal would bring: widespread entertainment industry layoffs, spiraling consumer costs and increased censorship of news on CBS and CNN. Bonta reportedly was holding strong until a couple of days ago, when closed-door negotiations with Paramount ramped up.

Free Press Co-CEO Jessica J. González said:

“We are disappointed that Attorney General Bonta went back on his promise to enforce the law and protect consumers and workers. Hundreds of thousands of people called on our state AGs to stand up to the Ellisons, who have engaged in a campaign of corruption and extortion to pave the way for this unlawful merger. We can no longer rely on the federal government to enforce the law and protect regular people. That much is clear. But the AGs’ capitulation marks a new low. It’s a sad day for all of us who have been opposing this merger because it will cut jobs and raise prices, all as it consolidates the media even more to enable authoritarians.

“Based on all reports, this weak deal contains nothing but unenforceable, empty Paramount promises. It abandons the thousands of creatives and workers who risked speaking out, and the tens of millions of consumers the attorneys general should be fighting for.

“Behavioral conditions do not work. They won’t save jobs, preserve choice, or prevent price hikes. As we learned from the failed and widely-panned Facebook Oversight Board, a fake bipartisan oversight committee won’t save CNN. We have all the evidence we need from the Ellisons’ destruction of CBS about what they do to warp journalism at Donald Trump’s request. This latest capitulation comes as the Trump administration barred CNN and other reporters who dare ask hard questions from the White House press pool.

“Consolidating the media in the hands of friendly oligarchs is right out of the authoritarian playbook. Americans across the political spectrum are fed up with corruption and consolidation, and billionaires calling all the shots while everyone else struggles. People won’t forget who stood up for them and who capitulated.

“What’s exceedingly clear is that our laws and our political system are not strong enough to resist the pressure and manipulation of corrupt billionaires. We need to strengthen democratic systems of government, including getting money out of politics, and pass laws that break up big media conglomerates. We need to ensure that a few billionaires can’t drown out the masses to dictate bad policy.”

'Our margin for error in tackling these problems is shrinking'

Source

Environmental and public health groups are challenging the Trump administration’s proposal to repeal greenhouse gas standards for power plants — a change that’s likely to increase Georgia’s emissions, according to advocates. In their lawsuit, groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council and American Public Health Association argue the proposed change threatens public health and the environment.

“Clean air is a basic human right. Power plant pollution threatens the health of millions of Americans and fuels climate change, worsening extreme heat, poor air quality, and other serious health risks,” said Georges C. Benjamin, CEO of the American Public Health Association, in a statement. 

The rule that the Environmental Protection Agency wants to repeal gives coal plants the option to either use technology designed to capture carbon emissions or to close entirely, with a deadline of 2032 to comply. For new natural gas plants, utilities would need to either install carbon capture or simply run the plants less often.

In Georgia, the Biden-era rule, which most experts agree was geared toward phasing out coal, was starting to work. In its 2022 long-term plan, Georgia Power, the state’s largest electricity utility, determined that it was too expensive to keep its coal plants running with carbon capture systems and decided to retire them. When Trump came back into office, though, the company’s calculus changed. According to Maggie Shober of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, utilities have been planning for the repeal of the Biden rule since President Trump was elected to a second term. 

Indeed, more than a year ago, Georgia Power got approval from the Georgia Public Service Commission to put off retiring two coal plants, extending one unit at Plant Scherer and three at Plant Gaston. In 2024, the most recent year for which the Energy Information Administration has published data, Plant Scherer, near Macon, emitted more than 8 million tons of carbon dioxide. Plant Gaston, in Alabama, emitted more than 2 million tons that year.

Read Next Trump topples the last pillar of Biden’s climate agenda Jake Bittle

When the company did this, Shober said, “technically the regulation would have been still in effect, but everybody understood it was not going to stay in effect. So they could roll back those coal retirements without planning to put carbon capture on them.”

During resource planning hearings in 2025 — the process that resulted in the delay of the coal retirements — Georgia Power officials said that in order to account for the regulatory uncertainty, the company ran nine planning scenarios, three of which included compliance with this rule and six of which did not.

“These scenarios provide a flexible framework for the company to evaluate its options among differing plausible future scenarios, positioning it to make informed resource planning decisions,” said Jeff Grubb, the utility’s director of resource policy and planning.

The planning agreement approved in 2025 called for Georgia Power to pursue compliance with the Biden-era EPA rule for plants Bowen and Scherer and report updates regularly to the commission, including “the Company’s assessment of the current legal status” of the rule.

Currently, Georgia Power is still running several coal plants and, as a result of the rising demand from data centers, is building a lot of new generation from methane gas, also known as natural gas. Without the EPA restrictions, Shober said emissions from those new gas turbines could more than double.

Under the Biden-era EPA rules, the utility would only have been able to run the new gas turbines about 40 percent of a year, producing about 4 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to Shober. Running 85 percent of a year, as they’d be allowed to do if the EPA’s proposed changes go through, she estimated the turbines would produce 8.5 million tons.

The EPA’s rule change isn’t final yet. There will still be a public comment period, and several groups have sued to block it. But as we have seen with the Trump administration, the existence of a given rule doesn’t necessarily translate to how utility companies operate. 

Georgia Power’s parent company, Southern Company, did not grant an interview or answer specific questions. Instead, a spokesperson sent a statement saying the company “supports regulatory certainty with a durable framework that leads to reliable and affordable electricity for our customers.” The statement made no mention of the company’s greenhouse gas reduction goal of net zero by 2050.

toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How Trump’s repeal of the greenhouse gas rule could double new emissions from Georgia on Sep 21, 2026.