News Feeds

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 20 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-063 The Sakhalin Papers LIII: The Missing LNG Cargoes — Shell’s Contract Was Supposed to Run Until 2028. Then It “Stood Terminated” Shell entered the Sakhalin LNG business as both shareholder and buyer. Public agreements envisaged long-term deliveries through 2028. After Russia transferred Sakhalin II to a new domestic operator in 2022, Shell stopped receiving the cargoes. In February 2023 it said it was considering its legal options. Its subsequent annual report went further: Shell said the old Sakhalin Energy company had failed to perform, had thereby renounced the LNG purchase contract, and that the contract “stood terminated.” No public record located for this file establishes that Shell has since received compensation for the lost deliveries.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-063
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2022; Shell Form 20-F 2023; Shell Form 20-F 2025
Contemporaneous reporting: Interfax, Reuters, Energy Intelligence and S&P Global
Related legal record: Russian restructuring of Sakhalin II and the continuing Moscow proceedings examined in the previous instalment
Evidence standard: Shell’s characterisation of contractual renunciation is attributed to Shell. It is not presented as a judicial finding. No inference is made that the absence of a publicly identified damages award proves that no confidential arbitration, negotiation or settlement process ever existed.

Introduction

The previous Shell Leaks File dealt with a contract that did not concern Sakhalin LNG.

Russia is currently seeking approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe over disputed pipeline-gas payments from 2022.

This file turns to the other contract.

This one really did concern Sakhalin.

And unlike the pipeline-gas dispute, the public record contains a remarkably clear statement from Shell about what happened to it.

The Sakhalin LNG contract was supposed to continue until 2028.

The cargoes stopped during the third quarter of 2022.

By the following year, Shell’s own annual report said the contract had been renounced through non-performance and:

“stood terminated.” (SEC)

That is a much more consequential statement than merely saying Shell had withdrawn from the Sakhalin II shareholding.

It means the 2022 Russian restructuring severed another commercial relationship that had been expected to survive for years.

1. Shell was not merely a shareholder in Sakhalin II

For much of Sakhalin II’s history, Shell occupied several different positions simultaneously.

It was an investor.

It supplied technology and expertise.

It participated in project governance.

And it was also an LNG buyer.

That purchasing relationship dated back well before commercial LNG production began.

In 2004, Sakhalin Energy and Shell Eastern Trading announced a long-term agreement under which Shell would purchase 37 million tonnes of LNG over twenty years, initially intended principally for the North American market through the Energia Costa Azul terminal in Baja California. Contemporary industry reporting described plateau supply of approximately 1.6 million tonnes per year. (Energy Intelligence)

The commercial structure subsequently evolved.

On 8 April 2009, Gazprom and Royal Dutch Shell announced another package of LNG and gas agreements.

Under those arrangements, Shell Eastern Trading and Gazprom Global LNG were each to purchase approximately:

1 million tonnes of LNG per year

from Sakhalin Energy.

Deliveries were scheduled from 2009 until:

2028

The arrangements also included an equivalent pipeline-gas component for Shell’s European portfolio. (Energy Intelligence)

The precise contractual evolution between the earlier 2004 agreement and the 2009 arrangements is not fully reconstructed from the public documents examined here.

But one point is beyond serious dispute:

Shell possessed a long-term Sakhalin LNG purchasing relationship scheduled to run until 2028.

2. The contract became part of Shell’s global LNG machine

That mattered because Shell does not treat individual LNG cargoes merely as isolated shiploads.

Its LNG business operates as a portfolio.

Shell’s annual reports describe a trading system in which equity production and third-party purchases can be combined, redirected and optimised through a global shipping and terminal network.

A cargo originally associated with one supply source can therefore contribute to obligations or trading opportunities somewhere else.

Shell explains that if a customer does not require a scheduled cargo, the company may redirect it; similarly, if Shell needs another cargo, it can procure one from third parties. (SEC)

The Sakhalin purchase contract therefore represented more than gas physically leaving Prigorodnoye.

It represented a recurring block of LNG within a much larger international trading portfolio.

At the publicly reported plateau rate of approximately one million tonnes per year, several million tonnes of future contracted supply remained when deliveries stopped in 2022.

The precise financial value of those future cargoes cannot responsibly be calculated from the public evidence.

The contract price formula is not before us.

Nor are Shell’s hedging arrangements, destination flexibility, replacement-purchase costs, mitigation measures or any confidential contractual provisions governing termination.

3. Then came the June 2022 presidential decree

On 30 June 2022, President Vladimir Putin issued the decree that fundamentally altered Sakhalin II’s corporate structure.

The existing operator was the Bermuda-incorporated:

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.

Russia created a replacement domestic company:

Sakhalin Energy LLC.

Under the Russian restructuring, the project’s assets, licences, rights, obligations and personnel were transferred into the new company.

Gazprom remained.

Mitsui and Mitsubishi ultimately elected to participate in the replacement structure.

Shell did not. (euronews)

Shell had already announced after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that it intended to exit its Russian ventures and withdraw in a phased manner from Russian hydrocarbons.

But leaving the shareholding and terminating every outstanding commercial contract were not necessarily the same legal act.

That distinction now became critical.

4. Other Sakhalin customers were offered new contracts

The Russian restructuring did not cause Sakhalin II LNG exports generally to cease.

Instead, customers had to deal with the new operator.

Reuters reported in August 2022 that Japanese utilities holding long-term Sakhalin contracts were being offered replacement arrangements by the newly established Russian company. (The Japan Times)

JERA subsequently signed an agreement with the new operator.

Its spokesperson told Reuters that key commercial terms including volume, price and payment currency remained essentially the same as before. (Journal Chrétien – Actualité chrétienne)

Tokyo Gas also entered a long-term contract with Sakhalin Energy LLC.

Mitsui and Mitsubishi remained as shareholders in the new structure. (euronews)

This creates an important comparison.

The project continued.

Japanese buyers continued.

Japanese shareholders continued.

Shell did not.

5. Shell’s cargoes stopped in the third quarter of 2022

The first authenticated Shell record is strikingly terse.

Shell’s 2022 Annual Report and Accounts states that the company still held two long-term LNG offtake contracts with Russian entities.

Then it records:

the counterparty under one contract stopped delivering cargoes during the third quarter of 2022. (Shell)

The report did not identify the counterparty in that sentence.

But the identity soon became clear.

It was Sakhalin.

Interfax reported Shell’s clarification on 2 February 2023.

One Russian LNG contract involved Novatek and Yamal LNG.

The other was the Sakhalin contract running until 2028.

Shell confirmed that it was no longer receiving the cargoes due under the Sakhalin arrangement. (Interfax)

6. Shell initially said it was evaluating its legal options

Shell’s February 2023 statement is important because it captures the company’s position before the later annual-report wording became more definitive.

Shell said that, as it understood the Russian decree, the licences, assets, liabilities and personnel of the old Sakhalin Energy company had been transferred into the new Russian entity.

Shell was no longer receiving the LNG cargoes.

And the company said it was continuing to monitor developments and evaluate what options were available within the legal framework. (Interfax)

That was not yet an announcement of a settlement.

Nor was it an announcement of a damages claim.

It was a reservation of position.

The contractual consequences were still being assessed.

7. Shell’s 2023 annual report went considerably further

Shell’s 2023 Form 20-F later supplied the clearest legal formulation identified for this file.

It said that in February 2023 Shell had concluded that the old Sakhalin Energy Investment Company had:

renounced the long-term LNG purchase contract through failure to perform.

Shell then stated the consequence:

the contract:

“stood terminated.”

(SEC)

That wording deserves care.

It represents Shell’s legal position.

No court judgment located for this instalment independently determines that Sakhalin Energy breached the contract or that Shell’s interpretation of renunciation was legally correct.

But the wording nevertheless establishes something important.

Shell did not regard the Sakhalin LNG agreement as merely suspended.

By its own 2023 reporting, Shell regarded it as terminated.

8. A contract scheduled to survive until 2028 had disappeared five years early

The distinction is substantial.

Industry contract records continued to identify the historical Sakhalin arrangement as approximately 1 million tonnes per year with a 2028 expiry date. S&P Global’s later contract table continued to record Shell on that basis when describing the original Sakhalin II contract portfolio. (S&P Global)

That table should not be interpreted as evidence that Shell was still receiving LNG.

Shell’s own filings say the opposite.

It is useful because it preserves the nominal contractual horizon.

The original commercial arrangement extended to 2028.

Shell says performance ended in 2022 and that the contract was terminated in 2023.

In practical terms, the 2022 restructuring cut across a supply relationship with years still left to run.

9. The physical LNG did not disappear

This is another critical distinction.

The project continued producing LNG.

Gazprom describes Sakhalin II’s Prigorodnoye plant as having two LNG trains with design capacity of approximately 9.6 million tonnes per year. (Gazprom)

Sakhalin Energy had previously produced substantially above that nominal design capacity: more than 11.6 million tonnes in 2020, according to the company’s own reporting. (Gazprom)

And after Shell’s departure, production continued under the Russian operator.

Gazprom was still describing the Sakhalin II LNG plant as successfully operating in October 2024. (Gazprom)

Thus Shell did not lose its contracted cargoes because the LNG facility stopped producing.

The commercial relationship changed while the physical asset continued to operate.

10. The Japanese buyers illustrate what might otherwise be misunderstood

Because Japanese purchasers entered replacement arrangements with the new operator, it would be wrong to describe the 2022 events as a general cancellation of all Sakhalin II sales contracts.

Different counterparties made different choices and faced different circumstances.

Japan regarded Sakhalin II as significant to its energy security.

JERA, Tokyo Gas and other Japanese buyers pursued continuity.

Shell had already committed publicly to withdrawing from Russian hydrocarbons and declined participation in the replacement Russian project company. (S&P Global)

The resulting contractual paths diverged.

That is established.

Why every legal and commercial choice was made behind closed doors is not.

11. Shell’s withdrawal policy did not automatically erase existing contracts

There is an apparent paradox here.

On one hand, Shell announced that it would withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons.

On the other, it complained that Sakhalin LNG cargoes were no longer being delivered.

Those positions are not necessarily inconsistent.

Shell repeatedly distinguished between new or spot Russian purchases and pre-existing long-term contractual obligations.

Its 2022 reporting states that it stopped spot purchases of Russian crude, LNG and refined products while existing contractual relationships were being wound down in accordance with legal obligations and contractual provisions.

The Sakhalin contract therefore had to be legally dealt with.

A corporate policy announcement could not simply rewrite the contract.

Neither could a change in Russian corporate structure necessarily determine its treatment under whatever governing law and dispute-resolution provisions the LNG agreement contained.

Those provisions have not been located publicly for this file.

12. What did Shell actually lose?

At minimum, Shell lost continued performance under a long-term LNG purchase agreement that had been expected to continue until 2028.

Public sources place the later contractual volume at approximately one million tonnes annually. (Energy Intelligence)

But translating that into a damages figure would require information not publicly available.

Among the missing variables are:

the contract pricing formula;

the exact quantity schedule;

destination and diversion rights;

take-or-pay provisions;

force majeure clauses;

sanctions provisions;

termination rights;

replacement cargo costs;

Shell’s hedging position;

and any obligation to mitigate losses.

Accordingly, this archive does not attach a speculative dollar or euro amount to the missing cargoes.

The documentary finding is narrower:

Shell lost contractual LNG supply that was scheduled to continue for years.

13. Did Shell ever obtain compensation?

No publicly identified judgment, arbitral award, settlement announcement or Shell disclosure located for this instalment establishes that Shell subsequently received compensation specifically for the terminated Sakhalin LNG purchase contract.

That absence requires qualification.

International LNG agreements commonly contain confidential dispute-resolution provisions.

Any arbitration could itself be private.

Negotiations could also remain confidential.

The absence of a public record therefore does not prove that Shell never pursued a claim.

What can be said is that Shell’s later published reports do not identify the Sakhalin LNG purchase agreement as an active Russian supply contract.

14. By 2023 only the Novatek contract remained

The contrast in Shell’s own reporting is unusually clear.

At the end of 2022 Shell said it had two long-term Russian LNG purchase contracts.

One was Sakhalin.

The other was a Novatek-linked agreement associated with Yamal LNG. (Shell)

Shell’s 2023 annual report then said the Sakhalin contract had been renounced and terminated.

It added that Shell still held one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity. (SEC)

Shell’s 2024 report repeated the same position.

So did its 2025 Form 20-F, published in March 2026. (SEC)

The accounting trail therefore tells the story almost mechanically:

Two Russian LNG contracts.

Then:

Sakhalin stops performing.

Then:

Sakhalin contract terminated.

Then:

one Russian LNG contract remains.

15. The surviving contract is not Sakhalin

This is important because it prevents another possible confusion.

Shell’s latest reporting still acknowledges a long-term Russian LNG purchase contract.

That does not mean the Sakhalin agreement revived.

The remaining contract is with a Novatek entity.

The original Novatek deal was signed in 2015 and contemplated approximately 900,000 tonnes of LNG annually for more than twenty years from the Yamal LNG project. (LNG Industry)

The Sakhalin purchase contract, by contrast, is no longer identified by Shell as active.

That distinction will matter in the next instalment.

16. The current Moscow lawsuit is about something else

Another distinction is essential.

The continuing Moscow lawsuit examined yesterday seeks approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe for alleged unpaid pipeline gas supplied by Gazprom Export in 2022.

That litigation should not be confused with the missing Sakhalin LNG cargoes.

The Sakhalin LNG purchase agreement concerned liquefied gas supplied from the Russian Far East under a separate commercial relationship.

The Gazprom Export dispute concerned pipeline gas destined for Germany and the post-invasion rouble-payment mechanism.

Russia has subsequently linked the pipeline-gas dispute to money associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin equity interest.

But the public record examined for these files does not show the €1.5 billion claim as damages arising from the missing Sakhalin LNG cargoes. (Interfax.ru)

Keeping those transactions separate is crucial.

Documentary Findings Established

Shell had a long-term commercial relationship under which it purchased LNG produced by Sakhalin II. (Energy Intelligence)

Publicly announced 2009 arrangements contemplated approximately one million tonnes per year being purchased by Shell from Sakhalin Energy through 2028. (Energy Intelligence)

Russia transferred the Sakhalin II operating structure from the Bermuda-incorporated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company to a new Russian entity in 2022. (S&P Global)

Japanese shareholders Mitsui and Mitsubishi entered the replacement company, and several Japanese LNG purchasers entered replacement supply arrangements with the new operator. (euronews)

Shell did not enter the replacement operating company.

Shell’s 2022 Annual Report states that a Russian LNG counterparty stopped delivering cargoes during the third quarter of 2022. (Shell)

Shell subsequently confirmed that the affected contract was the Sakhalin LNG agreement. (Interfax)

In February 2023 Shell said it was monitoring the contract and considering its legal options. (Interfax)

Shell’s 2023 Form 20-F subsequently stated that Sakhalin Energy Investment Company had renounced the LNG purchase contract through non-performance and that the contract stood terminated. (SEC)

Shell’s latest annual reporting identifies only one remaining long-term Russian LNG purchase contract, with a Novatek entity. (SEC)

The Sakhalin II LNG plant continued operating after Shell ceased receiving cargoes. (Gazprom)

Shell’s stated legal position

Shell treated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company’s non-performance as contractual renunciation.

Shell treated the long-term Sakhalin LNG purchase contract as terminated.

Those are authenticated statements of Shell’s position.

They are not substituted here for an independent court or arbitral determination.

Not established

It is not established from the public record examined here that a court or arbitral tribunal found Sakhalin Energy liable to Shell for breach of the LNG purchase contract.

It is not established that Shell received damages or compensation for the undelivered Sakhalin cargoes.

It is not established that Shell received no compensation through any confidential arrangement.

It is not established how many individual cargoes Shell would ultimately have taken between the third quarter of 2022 and the original 2028 contractual expiry.

It is not established what financial value should be attached to those lost deliveries.

It is not established which later Sakhalin cargoes, if any, corresponded physically or commercially to volumes that might otherwise have been supplied to Shell.

And the pending €1.5 billion Moscow claim against Shell Energy Europe concerns a different pipeline-gas relationship and should not be described as litigation over the missing Sakhalin LNG cargoes.

Commentary

The missing cargoes reveal another reason the phrase:

“Shell left Sakhalin in 2022”

is inadequate as history.

Shell had spent decades embedding itself in Sakhalin II.

Its relationship with the project consisted of layers.

Ownership.

Management.

Technology.

Project finance.

LNG production.

Trading.

Long-term purchasing.

Those layers did not disappear simultaneously.

Shell announced its withdrawal from Russian investments in February 2022.

Its significant influence over Sakhalin Energy disappeared shortly afterwards.

Russia transferred the project to a new operating entity.

Shell declined to join it.

But an LNG purchase contract still existed.

Then the cargoes stopped.

Then Shell considered its legal options.

Then Shell formally recorded the contract as renounced and terminated.

That is not a single exit event.

It is an unwinding.

And even four years later, other Russian contractual and legal relationships remain unresolved.

Another archival lesson

The story also demonstrates why annual reports deserve to be read alongside headline news.

The headline in 2022 was:

Shell exits Russia.

The accounts revealed something much more complicated.

Shell still had Russian LNG contracts.

One supplier stopped delivering.

The Sakhalin contract disappeared.

The Novatek contract survived.

A separate Gazprom pipeline-gas dispute later became €1.5 billion litigation.

Shell’s former Sakhalin equity compensation became entangled in that lawsuit.

And the old Bermuda company remains on Shell’s books even though Shell says it no longer possesses Sakhalin II’s operating rights.

None of those details fits comfortably into the simple phrase:

“Shell left.”

That is precisely why the documentary chronology matters.

Source Record

Shell’s Annual Report and Accounts 2022 is the principal authenticated record for the cessation of cargo deliveries. It states that Shell still held two long-term LNG offtake contracts with Russian entities and that one counterparty stopped delivering cargoes during the third quarter of 2022. (Shell)

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2022

The SEC-hosted Shell Form 20-F 2023 contains the clearest later contractual statement: Shell said Sakhalin Energy Investment Company had renounced the long-term LNG purchase contract through non-performance and that the contract stood terminated. It also records that one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity remained. (SEC)

SEC — Shell Form 20-F 2023

Interfax reported Shell’s 2 February 2023 clarification that it was no longer receiving cargoes due under the Sakhalin contract and was evaluating its legal options. (Interfax)

Interfax — Shell says Sakhalin LNG deliveries have ceased, 2 February 2023

Contemporaneous Reuters reporting documents the different route taken by Japanese purchasers and shareholders, several of whom continued under contracts with the replacement Russian operator. (euronews)

Reuters — Russia approves Mitsubishi participation in new Sakhalin II operator

Reuters — Japanese utilities receive replacement Sakhalin contracts

Energy Intelligence’s contemporaneous 8 April 2009 report records the Shell-Gazprom arrangements under which each company was to purchase about one million tonnes annually from Sakhalin Energy from 2009 through 2028. (Energy Intelligence)

Energy Intelligence — Gazprom and Shell sign Sakhalin LNG agreements, 8 April 2009

Gazprom’s current Sakhalin II project record confirms the continuing operation and 9.6 million-tonne design capacity of the Prigorodnoye LNG facility. (Gazprom)

Gazprom — Sakhalin II project record

Shell’s latest authenticated annual report, for 2025, continues to state that Shell has one long-term Russian LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity while retaining its shares in the old Bermuda-incorporated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company. (SEC)

SEC — Shell Form 20-F 2025

Archive disclaimer: Shell’s characterisation of contractual renunciation and termination is attributed to Shell. No publicly identified judgment or arbitral award located for this file independently determines liability under the Sakhalin LNG purchase agreement. The absence of publicly reported compensation is not treated as proof that no confidential claim, negotiation or settlement existed.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LIV: The Russian LNG Contract That Survived — Why Shell Still Lists a Novatek Deal More Than Four Years After Announcing Its Russian Withdrawal

The Sakhalin agreement disappeared.

The other Russian LNG contract did not.

In June 2015, Novatek announced a deal under which Shell International Trading Middle East would purchase approximately:

900,000 tonnes of Yamal LNG every year

for:

more than twenty years.

(LNG Industry)

Shell announced in March 2022 that it intended to withdraw in a phased manner from Russian hydrocarbons.

Yet Shell’s 2025 Annual Report, published in March 2026, still says:

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

That raises the next documentary question:

Why did the Sakhalin LNG contract terminate while the Novatek/Yamal contract survived — and what does “phased withdrawal from Russian hydrocarbons” mean when one of Shell’s Russian LNG agreements may still have more than a decade left to run?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 20 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 20, 2026 at 7:49 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

For workers, the climate crisis is here: TUC Congress 2026 report

Photo: Hert Niks on unsplash

By Tahir Latif GJA Secretary

If the heatwaves, wildfires and the coming El Niño-generated floods in the U.K. have achieved anything, it’s to focus the trade union movement less on a ‘future’ threat to our communities and more on the need to take action right now, without equivocation.  Despite the government’s decisions on Rosebank, Jackdaw and Heathrow still hanging in the balance, there was little of the ‘jobs at all cost’ support for these developments on display; instead, we had some powerful words and a deep commitment from many unions, led by NEU, UCU, UNISON and FBU, on the form immediate action should take.

On the Sunday evening, a climate fringe, The Climate Crisis Is Here: Trade Unions’ Time To Act, hosted by Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Group, Greener Jobs Alliance and PCS, included a rousing contribution from Asad Rehman, Chief Executive of Friends of the Earth, while Debra Beale, NEU Joint President, spoke eloquently about the impact of the heatwaves in schools for both teachers and pupils, and the urgent need for investment to upgrade school buildings.

The tone for the week was set by FBU General Secretary Steve Wright, who related the difficulties of meeting the wildfire threat with an inadequate number of workers.  He acknowledged the heroic work of members in dealing with the huge number of calls when resources are stretched thin:

As firefighters, we’re getting quite impatient at politicians talking about the role that firefighters take in these incidents and the craziness across the summer, with no real direction about how they’re going to fix it.

This topic was the central theme of Motion C14, Climate Heat Emergency, heard in the Tuesday morning session.  As well as demands arising specifically from the impacts of the heatwaves, notably a call for a legally enforceable maximum working temperature of 26C, an increase in firefighters and a National Wildfire summit, the motion also reinforced key climate demands such as rights for Green reps, funding for solar panels and implementation of the Green New Deal.

The motion was moved by NEU General Secretary Daniel Kebede, who cut to the heart of the issue, I.e. societal breakdown under neoliberalism: it is, he said, ‘not simply a failure of policy…or a failure of imagination.  It’s the failure of an economic system that has made profit god and treated the living world as sacrifice…an economy organised around extraction, exploitation and endless accumulation.’  FBU’s Dwight Williams underlined the urgent need to reverse 15 years of cuts, provision of proper PPE equipment, better land management and a U.K.-wide wildfire strategy.

On an agenda packed with worthy motions, of particular note here were:

Motion 75, moved by UCU, supporting the Wages not Weapons campaign, and promoting ‘a trade union vision of security based on decent work, quality public services, equality, climate action, democracy and peace’, a welcome and widely supported riposte to the idea that unions should passively ‘chase the money’ if it’s going into weapons manufacture and thereby reinforce the drive to militarism.

Motion C8 (BFAWU) called on the TUC to campaign for ‘the right to food to be enshrined in U.K. law’, ending food poverty and implementing a food and nutrition strategy while ensuring secure unionised jobs to replace unpaid labour.

Motion 55 (ASLEF) and 56 (TSSA) both addressed aspects of the much needed transformation of the rail industry.  Motion 55 won support for ASLEF’s Own Our Trains campaign, which calls for public ownership not only of U.K. rail operations but the rolling stock itself.  Motion 56 demanded guaranteed job protection for workers as they transition to Great British Rail, exactly the base demand that should be at the forefront of the energy unions approach, as well as every other sector of the economy.

In all, if Congress is more about checking the temperature of individual union commitments to action on different subjects than in placing actions on TUC itself, then this was a hugely successful year, showing that the Year of Trade Union Climate Action has had an effect, and that the now very real urgency of meeting the climate crisis is building the kind of cross sectoral action and solidarity that is desperately needed.

Link to TUC Congress 2026 home page, where you’ll find the agenda, motions and all other information:

And a direct link to the YouTube videos of proceedings.  The debate on Motion C14 can be found 1hr 25 mins into the Tuesday morning session. 

← To the apocalypse! And beyond! Possible futures in and beyond UN climate modeling ... Join Us

Get in the loop! Sign up to receive future GJA Newsletters and Blogs here.

SIGN UP Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post For workers, the climate crisis is here: TUC Congress 2026 report first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, September 13, 2026 thru Sat, September 19, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Change Impacts (8 articles)

• A Super El Niño Is Building. Florida`s Most Vulnerable Homes Aren`t Ready. A strong El Niño is raising the odds of an active winter storm season—and the Floridians most likely to die in a tornado live in aging manufactured homes the state can’t even count. Inside Climate News, Kate Waxman, Sep 13, 2026.
• The Atmosphere Just Set a Water Vapor Record More water vapor means more rocket fuel for extreme rain — so this record is not good news The Climate Brink, Andrew Dessler, Sep 14, 2026.
• Climate crisis likely behind devastating Nepal-Tibet floods that killed more than 1,300, first study finds Scientists say global heating was a destabilising factor in collapse of 200,000 sq metre glacier in August. The Guardian, Damien Gayle, Sep 16, 2026.
• The open houses at the edge of disaster This story is part of Betting the House, a pop-up climate newsroom bringing together independent journalists to cover climate and housing. HEATED, Emily Atkin, Sep 17, 2026.
• Climate change is making it easier for invasive species to succeed The Conversation, Nicola S. Smith & William W. L. Cheung , Sep 17, 2026.
• MIT researchers are mapping extreme weather risks - and building tools to act on them The Climate Grand Challenges “New World of Weather” project shows how modeling, planning tools, and infrastructure analysis are translating research into real-world resilience. MIT News, David Chandler, Sep 18, 2026.
• What Happens When Earth Passes 1.5 Degrees of Warming? Climate scientist Michael Mann digs into the story behind the latest numbers. Inside Climate News, Steve Curwood, Sep 19, 2026.
• Burning forests, emptying rivers, €180bn in damage: Europe`s politicians face reckoning after `summer of truth` Amid record-shattering heatwaves and popular demand for climate action, why are politicians often timid or in denial? The Guardian, Fiona Harvey, Sep 19, 2026.

Climate Policy and Politics (7 articles)

• This climate problem isn`t on the UN agenda - data centers The slow moving climate talks are struggling to address one of the world’s biggest drivers of rising energy demand. Politico, Sara Schonhardt, Sep 11, 2026.
• EPA Will Remove Carbon Dioxide Limits on Power Plants The U.S. power sector—which accounts for roughly a quarter of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions—will no longer need to abide by Biden-era federal climate pollution regulations. Eos, Grace van Deelen, Sep 14, 2026.
• Trump Administration Will Roll Back Climate Rules According to published reports, the Trump Administration will finalize rules to rollback carbon pollution standards for power plants, as soon as today. Common Dreams, Newswire Editor, Sep 14, 2026.
• Trump Doubles Down on Climate Denial With Plan to Repeal Power Plant Rules The EPA revoked limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, rejecting decades of settled science to argue that they do not contribute to dangerous air pollution. Inside Climate News, Liza Gross, Sep 15, 2026.
• How does unthinkable policy become inevitable? The `Overton window` is one possible answer The Overton window seems convenient for explaining big shifts in public policy. But just how good is it? The Conversation, Joshua Black, Lecturer in Australian Political Studies, University of Canberra, Sep 15, 2026.
• What the science really says about the health and climate risks of carbon pollution The repeal of this rule is the latest in the Trump Administration’s attempts to roll back federal climate regulation. TIME, Simmone Shah, Sep 15, 2026.
• Why Germany is building an ark for U.S. climate data As researchers around the world begin work on the next U.N. climate assessment, fears are growing that the Trump administration could meddle with critical U.S. climate data. In response, scientists are preparing to transfer vast troves of that data to repositories in Germany. YaleEnvironment360, Christian Schwägerl, Sep 17, 2026.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (4 articles)

• Why is Venus hotter than Mercury, when Mercury is closer to the sun? Despite being farther from the sun, Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system, and the reason has little to do with proximity to a star. Live Science, Olivia Maule, Sep 12, 2026.
• Africa`s climate services need local detail and knowledge, say people who use the information The Conversation, Petra HoldenCherié Janine Forbes and Gerald Ngoma, Sep 13, 2026.
• Australia must double down to meet our climate targets. Our new study shows how A new report from Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research asks and attempts to answer a seemingly simple question: what can Australia do to limit GHG emissions overshoot? The Conversation, Bill Hare, Murdoch University, Sep 13, 2026.
• Scrap the term `net zero` - it`s too toxic, net zero committee urges Calling for a major rebranding of the effort to tackle climate change, the cross-party committee said the term had become a ‘lightning rod for opposition to climate action’ The Independent News, Millie Cooke, Sep 17, 2026.

Climate Science and Research (3 articles)

• Wildfires, permafrost melt in Canada causing even more climate change, new study shows New research says current climate models don’t account for warming-induced emissions CBC, Inyat Singh, Sep 11, 2026.
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #38 2026 Skeptical Science's weekly survey of peer-reviewed climate research plus climate-related reports from think tanks and governments. Skeptical Science, Doug Bostrom & Marc Kodack, Sep 17, 2026.
• How narwhal 'scientists' track Arctic warming Phys.org, Issam AHMED, Sep 19, 2026.

Climate Education and Communication (2 articles)

• In Florida, textbook publishers are minimizing or removing climate change coverage The words "climate change" are slowly being removed from textbooks in Florida and from the state's education standards. NPR, Jessica Meszaros, Sep 15, 2026.
• 12 climate books for back-to-school season These titles showcase how disciplines across the curriculum can inform our response to climate change. Yale Climate Connections, Michael Svoboda, Sep 15, 2026.

Miscellaneous (2 articles)

• 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37 A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, September 6, 2026 thru Sat, September 12, 2026. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler & Doug Bostrom, Sep 13, 2026.
• Kim Stanley Robinson won`t read aloud his climate disaster scene from `The Ministry for the Future` Kim Stanley Robinson, author of one of the most famous novels on climate change, says he has done more than 600 speaking events since “The Ministry for the Future” was published in 2020 — but he won’t read the first chapter out loud. AP News, Peter Prengaman, Sep 17, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Science (1 article)

• Many Trump `enemies` are being spoon-fed to him by one conservative think tank Climate denial successfully fed to the White House as policy framework. The Independent News, Andrew Feinberg, Sep 18, 2026.

Climate Law and Justice (1 article)

• Congressional Republicans Aim to Shield Fossil Fuel Companies From Climate Lawsuits The House Judiciary Committee will consider the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act as the Trump administration moves to roll back federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Inside Climate News, Georgina Gustin, Sep 15, 2026.

If you happen upon high quality climate-science and/or climate-myth busting articles from reliable sources while surfing the web, please feel free to submit them via this Google form so that we may share them widely. Thanks!

While tech oligarchs grandstand about the existential danger AI superintelligence poses to humanity, former Environmental Protection Agency officials say we should be worried about a more immediate threat to our health: the data centers that power those AI models. 

The former EPA researchers, now working with the nonprofit Environmental Protection Network, are warning in a new report that since January 2025, Donald Trump’s EPA has embarked on a systematic weakening of pollution safeguards, permitting processes, inspection norms, and other guardrails — at least 30 different actions — that could increase the health risks associated with the data center boom. 

There are currently about 3,000 data centers in the United States, and more than 1,500 new centers are in the planning stages. But as developers build out this vast, energy-hungry infrastructure, the country is losing the government regulatory safeguards that are needed to ensure that expansion is done safely, the ex–EPA officials say. 

Read Next AI could help fossil fuel companies create more emissions Molly Taft, WIRED

Dan Costa, who spent 35 years at the EPA studying air pollution, noted that for decades the environmental agency, which was established in 1970, had a large and committed cadre of researchers who investigated emerging sources of pollution and new environmental threats.

“Over the decades, toxicologists, chemists, atmospheric scientists, modelers, and engineers worked in concert with academic colleagues on behalf of the American people — not on behalf of industry,” Costa said in a press briefing last week. “We wanted to carry out EPA’s mission of protecting people’s health from industrial air pollution.”

Now, though, that workforce has been gutted. The Trump administration has dismantled EPA’s main research office, and the agency’s priorities have shifted away from strict enforcement of pollution standards. “Transforming the nation’s energy system, while diminishing its scientific capacity to understand what the impacts are going to be, makes no sense,” Costa said. 

But that appears to be the direction the country is heading in. President Donald Trump is “positioning America as the global leader in AI,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote in a memo last year. The agency is “committed to bolstering” those efforts, Zeldin said, by “cutting heavy-handed regulations to ensure America can build and power the data centers essential to Making America the AI Capital of the World.” 

Read Next It’s official: Data centers are slowing America’s shift away from coal Jake Bittle

Since Trump returned to the White House, data center developers have seized the opportunity to expand at a rapid pace, helped by the administration’s moves. In some cases, that deregulation has involved keeping old coal-fired plants online past their planned decommissioning times in order to power data centers; other times, it has meant easing regulations on the use of onsite fossil fuel-powered turbines to power hyperscale data centers like xAI’s Colossus. 

The agency has proposed a rule change that would let developers begin constructing data centers and their associated power plants before they get air pollution permits. And it has directed the agency’s enforcement staff to avoid any action that could “unduly burden or significantly disrupt” energy production or power generation.

According to one study the former EPA researchers cited in their new report, pollution associated with the AI boom may lead to 1,300 additional deaths per year. 

Physician and former EPA administrative official Lynn Goldman said some health impacts of increased data center pollution might be felt quickly — for example, heart attacks or premature births associated with particulate exposure. Others, such as cancer, might take years to emerge. “The AI industry’s race for advantage should not be a matter of life or death,” Goldman said at the press conference. “Families shouldn’t have to pay for the AI boom with their health.” 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Former EPA officials: Trump is letting data centers make people sick on Sep 20, 2026.

Headline News:

• “Wind Power Carbon Footprint: What The Lifecycle Data Actually Shows” • The wind power carbon footprint is often described as “close to zero.” While that may be a bit misleading, the total per kilowatt-hour is so small that the entire lifecycle carbon debt of a modern turbine gets repaid within about a year or two of operation. [Intelligent Living]

Wind farm (Thomas Galler, Unsplash)

• “Trump Says He Will Form New ‘AI Force’ But Continues To Call AI Fears A ‘Hoax'” • As concerns from Silicon Valley and beyond grow about the rapid pace of AI development, President Trump said he will move to create an “AI Force.” He promised to appoint a new AI czar as he continued to defend the technology. He still calls the fears about AI a “hoax.” [ABC News]
• “China’s Electric Aviation Advantage Is A Transport System, Not A Prototype” • China does not need battery aircraft to compete with 350 km/h trains between major cities. It needs them to become the better transport product on routes where another railway has poor economics and conventional regional aviation is too expensive. [CleanTechnica]
• “Canada Haunts Trump With New Offshore Wind Project” • Trump might not like it, but Wind West will add offshore wind to Nova Scotia’s energy resources. According to the Government, the province hosts annual average offshore wind speeds in the range of 9-11 meters per second, making it one of the strongest wind areas in North America. [CleanTechnica]
• “Georgia Power Adds 1.14 GW Of Solar Energy With Seven Projects” • Georgia Power said it received authorization to add 1.14 GW of new solar power capacity through agreements linked to seven projects that will begin commercial operations starting in 2029. The facilities will be distributed across different counties in Georgia. [Inspenet]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Registered nurses at Ascension St. Agnes in Baltimore, Md., voted overwhelmingly in favor of ratifying a three-year contract on Saturday, winning their first-ever collective bargaining agreement in a watershed moment for nurses across Baltimore.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 19 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-062 The Sakhalin Papers LII: The Type-C Account — How a 2022 Rouble-Payment Dispute Became a €1.5 Billion Claim Against Shell Russia’s Prosecutor General is seeking approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe over disputed 2022 gas payments — and wants approximately 94 billion roubles set aside for Shell’s Sakhalin compensation used against the claim. The two sums arise from different transactions. Moscow has joined them together in one closed-door lawsuit. Shell says liability remains uncertain. As of July 2026, the next reported hearing was not due until January 2027.

The previous instalment followed the 94.8 billion roubles attached to Shell’s former Sakhalin II interest.

The money did not simply reach Shell.

Instead, approximately 94 billion roubles became trapped inside Russia’s post-2022 financial machinery and subsequently appeared in a lawsuit concerning an entirely different commercial relationship:

pipeline gas supplied by Gazprom Export to Shell Energy Europe for Germany.

That distinction is essential.

The Russian claim now links:

Shell’s withdrawal from Sakhalin II;

a 2022 gas-supply contract;

Russia’s demand that foreign buyers use its new rouble-payment mechanism;

and:

the proceeds associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin interest.

The result is one of the strangest legal afterlives of Shell’s withdrawal from Russia.

1. The dispute began with pipeline gas — not Sakhalin LNG

The €1.5 billion claim now before the Moscow Arbitration Court should not be mistaken for a claim that Shell failed to pay for Sakhalin II LNG.

It concerns a separate contract between Gazprom Export and Shell Energy Europe Limited.

Contemporaneous reporting in 2022 recorded that the contract provided for up to 1.2 billion cubic metres of pipeline gas per year for Germany. (interfax.com)

That contract became caught in the confrontation over Russia’s new gas-payment rules following the invasion of Ukraine.

On 31 March 2022, President Vladimir Putin signed Decree No. 172 establishing a new payment procedure for certain foreign buyers of Russian gas.

Under the Russian mechanism, buyers from designated states were required to use accounts at Gazprombank through which foreign-currency payments would ultimately be converted into roubles. (interfax.com)

Shell did not accept the new requirement.

2. Gazprom cut Shell’s gas supply on 1 June 2022

On 31 May 2022, Gazprom Export said Shell Energy Europe had informed it that the company did not intend to make payment in roubles under the new Russian system.

Gazprom said that, by the payment deadline, it had not received the required rouble payment for gas supplied in April.

It announced that supply would therefore be suspended from 1 June 2022. (interfax.com)

Reuters contemporaneously reported the same event: Gazprom cut Shell Energy’s gas supply into Germany after Shell declined to comply with the rouble-payment demand. (euronews)

This point requires careful wording.

What is established is that:

Gazprom demanded payment under its new rouble mechanism.

Shell declined to adopt that mechanism.

Gazprom said compliant payment had not been received.

Gazprom stopped deliveries.

That does not, by itself, establish that Shell was contractually obliged under the original agreement to adopt Russia’s newly imposed payment system.

That question is part of the dispute.

3. The quarrel then disappeared from public view

For more than two years, the Shell-Gazprom payment dispute attracted comparatively little public attention.

Shell continued its phased withdrawal from Russian hydrocarbons.

Its Sakhalin II interest became subject to the separate restructuring examined in the previous instalments.

Gazprom’s Russian-controlled Sakhalin vehicle ultimately acquired the unclaimed replacement-company interest for 94.8 billion roubles.

Those events appeared to belong to different legal compartments.

One concerned:

gas purchased by Shell Energy Europe for Germany.

The other concerned:

Shell’s former equity position in Sakhalin II.

By 2024, Russia had joined them together.

4. The Prosecutor General filed suit

On 2 October 2024, Russia’s Prosecutor General filed proceedings in the Moscow Arbitration Court against Shell plc and several Shell-group entities.

The public case number is:

A40-241354/2024

The defendants named in public reporting included Shell plc, Shell Energy Europe Limited, several Dutch Shell companies and Shell NefteGaz Development LLC. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Gazprom Export, the Russian Energy Ministry, Sakhalin Energy LLC, the old Sakhalin Energy Investment Company and the Sakhalin regional authorities were among the third parties identified in reporting on the case. (interfax.com)

The Moscow court accepted the proceedings on 11 October 2024. A reproduced court decision identifies the case as Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation v Shell plc and others. (Jus Mundi)

At that point, however, the detailed basis of the claim was not publicly available.

The statement of claim itself was not published in the public case card. (ПРАВО.Ru)

5. Russia initially described damages of more than €1 billion

On 15 October 2024, the Moscow court press service told Interfax that the Prosecutor General was seeking damages exceeding €1 billion.

Contemporaneous reporting noted that the amount was broadly comparable with the rouble value associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin interest. (interfax.com)

But at that stage the precise connection had not been publicly explained.

That explanation would eventually come from Shell itself.

6. The courtroom was closed

On 11 December 2024, the Moscow Arbitration Court ordered that the proceedings be heard behind closed doors.

According to Interfax, most participants supported closed hearings because the case materials contained commercially confidential information.

The Prosecutor General also argued that public disclosure of information from the proceedings could increase sanctions pressure on Russia. (Interfax.ru)

That decision has an obvious consequence for this archive.

There is no complete public evidential record from which an outsider can independently reconstruct the parties’ contractual arguments.

The Shell Leaks Files therefore cannot responsibly declare which side is legally correct.

The available record establishes what each side is alleging.

It does not establish liability.

7. Shell eventually disclosed what Russia was seeking

The most important public description came from Shell’s own annual reporting.

Shell’s 2024 Form 20-F stated that the Russian prosecutor sought three principal forms of relief.

First, declarations that Shell had acted unlawfully in withdrawing support from Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

Second, approximately:

€1.5 billion

from Shell Energy Europe Limited to Gazprom Export for alleged unpaid gas deliveries during 2022.

Third, permission for Gazprom Export to take approximately:

94 billion roubles

purportedly reserved for Shell as Sakhalin equity compensation in a Type-C account, and apply that amount against part of the alleged Shell Energy Europe debt. (SEC)

That disclosure transformed the understanding of the case.

The Sakhalin compensation and the German gas-supply dispute had become legally connected.

8. Two separate commercial relationships were being joined together

This is the central documentary point.

The €1.5 billion claim relates to alleged non-payment for gas under the Gazprom Export–Shell Energy Europe relationship.

The 94 billion roubles relates to compensation associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin position.

They are not the same transaction.

Russia’s case seeks to connect them through set-off.

In simplified terms, the prosecutorial position described by Shell is:

Shell Energy Europe allegedly owes Gazprom Export money.

Money is allegedly being held for Shell arising from Sakhalin.

Russia wants the Sakhalin money applied against the alleged gas debt.

That is the connection.

9. What is a Type-C account?

Type-C accounts became an important part of Russia’s financial response to Western sanctions after the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

They are special rouble accounts used in certain circumstances to fulfil obligations to creditors associated with states Russia categorises as “unfriendly”.

The account structure can mean that an obligation is treated as paid within the Russian system even though the foreign creditor cannot freely repatriate or use the funds in the manner normally expected in an international commercial transaction. (lidings.com)

For Shell, however, one qualification is particularly important.

Shell’s annual report does not simply state as an uncontested fact that 94 billion roubles belongs to Shell.

It describes the money as approximately 94 billion roubles “purportedly set aside” for Shell’s Sakhalin equity compensation. (SEC)

That wording preserves Shell’s legal position.

So should this archive.

10. Shell sought postponements

The litigation did not move rapidly towards judgment.

Shell’s 2024 Form 20-F recorded that Shell Energy Europe filed a written postponement motion on 30 January 2025.

Following a hearing on 14 February 2025, the case was postponed until 14 April. (SEC)

Further delays followed.

On 14 April 2025, the court adjourned proceedings until 11 June. (Interfax.ru)

On 11 June, the next hearing was fixed for 25 August. (Interfax.ru)

On 25 August, another postponement took the case to 26 November.

Interfax reported that Shell Energy Europe had again sought an adjournment and that the prosecutor had submitted further written explanations. (Interfax.ru)

The repeated adjournments show that this was not being disposed of summarily.

11. Shell’s latest annual report still records no resolution

Shell’s 2025 Annual Report and Accounts, published on 12 March 2026, provides the most recent authenticated Shell description located for this instalment.

The language is notably cautious.

Shell again states that the prosecutor seeks:

approximately €1.5 billion;

access to approximately 94 billion roubles of alleged Sakhalin compensation;

and declarations concerning Shell’s conduct in relation to Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

Then comes the critical sentence:

“The proceedings are ongoing.” (SEC)

Shell further says that it cannot reliably estimate either the magnitude or timing of any possible obligation or payment, or even whether payment will ultimately be due.

The company records a high degree of uncertainty over the outcome and its possible effects. (SEC)

That is Shell’s own audited reporting position.

12. The case is now reported to extend into 2027

There is a more recent procedural development.

A report dated 8 July 2026, citing the Moscow Arbitration Court case file, states that the next continuation of the proceedings is scheduled for:

18 January 2027

The reported claim remains €1.5 billion. (https://x-compliance.ru)

That means that, as of the latest public procedural information located for this file, the litigation remains unresolved more than two years after the Prosecutor General first filed suit.

No final Russian judgment has been identified for this instalment.

Accordingly, the archive treats the allegations as pending.

13. The 2022 gas dispute deserves particular care

The Russian claim is often summarised as being for “unpaid gas.”

That shorthand risks obscuring the contractual dispute.

Contemporaneous reporting establishes that Gazprom demanded compliance with a payment mechanism introduced by Russian presidential decree after the original gas relationship was already operating.

Gazprom said Shell refused to pay in roubles.

Shell did not accept the new payment terms.

Gazprom then halted supplies. (interfax.com)

The later Russian prosecutor describes sums as unpaid.

But the public record available here does not contain the full gas contract, the payment clauses, the parties’ contractual notices, or the evidence being considered in the closed Moscow proceedings.

It would therefore be improper to convert the Russian allegation into an established debt.

14. The same caution applies to Russia’s allegation that Shell “abandoned” Sakhalin

Shell announced in 2022 that it intended to withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Russia subsequently restructured Sakhalin II under presidential decree.

Shell declined to take an interest in the newly created Russian operator.

Mitsui and Mitsubishi remained.

The Russian prosecutor now seeks declarations concerning what Shell’s annual report describes as alleged unlawful abandonment of support for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company. (SEC)

That allegation forms part of the pending proceedings.

It has not been established by a final judgment located for this instalment.

15. Yet Shell has not entirely disappeared from the old corporate structure

Shell’s 2025 annual report continues to state that the company holds a 27.5% minus one share interest in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd, the old Bermuda-incorporated company. (SEC)

As previous instalments have documented, Russia transferred the operational rights and obligations into a new Russian company.

Shell did not join that company.

The result is an extraordinary corporate split:

Shell retains shares in the predecessor entity;

the operating project is controlled through the Russian successor;

the economic value associated with Shell’s former operating interest was priced at 94.8 billion roubles;

and Russia now wants approximately that compensation pool applied against a separate gas claim.

16. What the case does not establish

The litigation does not currently establish that Shell owes Gazprom Export €1.5 billion.

It does not establish that the 94 billion roubles is freely available property of Shell.

It does not establish that Russia’s post-2022 rouble-payment mechanism was contractually binding upon Shell Energy Europe under the pre-existing agreement.

It does not establish that Shell’s decision not to participate in the replacement Sakhalin operator was unlawful.

And it does not establish that Gazprom Export is ultimately entitled to set one claim against the other.

Those are precisely the matters that remain contested.

Documentary Findings

Established: Shell Energy Europe had a Gazprom Export contract for up to 1.2 billion cubic metres of gas annually for Germany. (interfax.com)

Established: In May 2022, Shell Energy Europe informed Gazprom Export that it would not adopt the new rouble-payment arrangement demanded under Russian Presidential Decree No. 172. (interfax.com)

Established: Gazprom suspended supplies from 1 June 2022 after stating that the required rouble payment had not been received. (interfax.com)

Established: Russia’s Prosecutor General filed Moscow proceedings against Shell-group entities on 2 October 2024 under Case No. A40-241354/2024. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Established: The proceedings were placed behind closed doors in December 2024. (Interfax.ru)

Established: Shell says the prosecutor seeks approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe for alleged unpaid 2022 gas deliveries. (SEC)

Established: Shell says the prosecutor also seeks authority for Gazprom Export to take approximately 94 billion roubles purportedly reserved for Shell’s Sakhalin equity compensation from a Type-C account and apply it against part of the alleged debt. (SEC)

Established: Shell’s 2025 Annual Report, published on 12 March 2026, describes the case as ongoing and says the company cannot reliably estimate any eventual payment obligation. (SEC)

Established: Public procedural reporting dated 8 July 2026 states that the next continuation of the proceedings is scheduled for 18 January 2027. (https://x-compliance.ru)

Alleged: That Shell Energy Europe owes approximately €1.5 billion for unpaid gas.

Alleged: That Shell unlawfully withdrew support from Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

Not established: That Shell is ultimately liable for either allegation.

Not established: That Gazprom Export is entitled to the 94 billion-rouble compensation pool.

Not established: That the Type-C funds will ever be freely recoverable by Shell.

Commentary

The most revealing feature of this case is not simply its size.

It is the way separate strands of Shell’s Russian exit have become entangled.

A gas-purchase contract for Germany.

A presidential decree changing the currency-payment mechanism.

Shell’s refusal to adopt that mechanism.

Gazprom’s suspension of supply.

Shell’s withdrawal from Sakhalin.

Russia’s transfer of the project to a new operator.

The 94.8 billion-rouble valuation of Shell’s former interest.

A restricted Type-C account.

Then a Prosecutor General’s lawsuit attempting to connect them.

Four years after Shell announced that it would withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons, the company’s Russian relationship is still generating unresolved legal consequences.

That is the point the official record now establishes.

Leaving the country commercially did not mean leaving its legal system behind.

The evidential limitation matters

There is also a larger archival lesson.

The Moscow case is closed to the public.

The full pleadings are not publicly available.

The underlying contracts are not before us.

The court has not issued a publicly identified final judgment.

In those circumstances, certainty would be manufactured.

The proper documentary approach is narrower:

record what Russia alleges;

record what Shell says;

record what the contemporaneous evidence shows;

record the procedural history;

and stop where the evidence stops.

That discipline is especially important when the dispute sits at the intersection of sanctions, war, energy security and state-controlled companies.

Source Record

Shell’s latest authenticated description appears in its 2025 Annual Report and Accounts, published 12 March 2026. It states that the Moscow proceedings remain ongoing, identifies the €1.5 billion claim and the attempted use of approximately 94 billion roubles from a Type-C account, and records Shell’s inability to estimate the eventual financial outcome. (SEC)

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025

The SEC-hosted Shell filing provides the same authenticated disclosure.

SEC — Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025

The original Moscow case is publicly identified as A40-241354/2024. Pravo reported the filing and noted that the statement of claim itself was not available in the public case card. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Pravo — Prosecutor files case against Shell

The Moscow court’s 11 October 2024 decision accepting the case is reproduced by Jus Mundi. (Jus Mundi)

Jus Mundi — Prosecutor-General’s Office v Shell

Interfax recorded the December 2024 decision to close the proceedings to the public and the repeated 2025 adjournments. (Interfax.ru)

Interfax — Court orders closed hearing, 11 December 2024

Interfax — Hearing moved to 11 June 2025

Interfax — Hearing moved to 25 August 2025

Interfax — Hearing moved to 26 November 2025

The 2022 gas-payment dispute was documented contemporaneously by Gazprom statements carried by Interfax and Reuters reporting. (interfax.com)

Interfax — Gazprom halts gas supplies to Shell, 1 June 2022

Reuters report — Gazprom cuts Shell Energy supply, 1 June 2022

The latest procedural report located for this instalment, dated 8 July 2026 and citing the court docket, states that the next hearing is scheduled for 18 January 2027. (https://x-compliance.ru)

X-Compliance — Shell hearing continued to January 2027

Archive disclaimer: Russian prosecutorial allegations are identified as allegations. Shell’s descriptions of the case are attributed to Shell. The absence of public pleadings and the closed nature of the Moscow proceedings prevent an independent assessment of the full contractual evidence. This instalment therefore makes no finding that Shell owes the sums claimed, that Russia’s rouble-payment mechanism governed the original contract, or that Gazprom Export is legally entitled to Shell’s Sakhalin compensation.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LIII: The Missing LNG Cargoes — Shell Had a Sakhalin Contract Running to 2028. Then the Deliveries Stopped

There is another contract in the Sakhalin story.

This one did concern LNG.

Shell disclosed that it had a long-term agreement with the old Sakhalin Energy company that was due to run until 2028.

After Russia transferred the project into the replacement Russian operator, Shell said it stopped receiving cargoes due under that contract.

By February 2023, Shell was publicly saying that it was monitoring developments and evaluating its legal options. (interfax.com)

The next file follows those missing cargoes:

What exactly did Shell lose when Sakhalin LNG stopped arriving, what contractual rights survived the Russian restructuring, and did Shell ever obtain compensation for supplies that were supposed to continue for years after its departure?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 19 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 19, 2026 at 9:47 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

On Thursday morning, Sept. 24, Food Tank will host “Chefs Save the World” at Climate Week NYC 2026, in partnership with The James Beard Foundation and CARE. The morning will highlight how culinary leaders are using their platforms to drive meaningful impact in their communities and beyond.

Chefs are far more than culinary innovators. From reducing food waste and supporting regenerative agriculture to championing local producers, improving nutrition, and responding to humanitarian crises, they are helping shape a more sustainable and equitable food system.

Discussions will feature voices of global farmers, explore the barriers facing women farmers, and highlight the solutions—including those in partnership with chefs—driving meaningful change.

“Every meal served today starts with a farmer, and in much of the world that farmer is a woman working land she does not own, in a climate she did not destabilize, with less access to credit, seed, and training than the men farming beside her,” says Maria Hinson Tobin, Executive Director of Agribusiness Partnerships at CARE.

“Women are feeding their families, their communities, and contributing to the world’s food resources. Their resilience is the most undervalued asset in the global food system, and events like this exist to make sure it stops being invisible.”

The event will kick off at WNYC-NPR Studios’ The Greene Space in New York City at 9am with breakfast and live musical performances, followed by a reception including lunch until 12:45pm.

Speakers and performers include Chef Fariyal Abdullahi, Executive Chef and Partner, Hav & Mar; Chef Bleu Adams, Executive Chef, Black Lamb Group, and Director, IndigeHub; Fernando González, Co-Founder and Pitmaster, 2Fifty Texas BBQ; Roman Goron, French-Filipino-American jazz pianist, composer, and producer at Juilliard; Erica Helms, Chief Growth Officer, James Beard Foundation; Emily Janoch, Associate Vice President for Evidence and Learning, CARE; Ellie Krieger, Dietitian and Nutritionist, Host of Healthy Appetite with Ellie Krieger on Food Network and Ellie’s Real Good Food on PBS, and Columnist, The Washington Post; Anne E. McBride, PhD, Vice President of Impact, James Beard Foundation; Taylor Montgomery, James Beard Award-Winning Chef, Farmer, and Co-Founder, Montgomery Sky Farm; Liz Murray, Chief Operating Officer, The Marlow Collective; Danielle Nierenberg, President, Food Tank; Chris Noble, Associate Vice President, Corporate Partnerships, CARE; Chef Grace Ramirez, Chef, La Latina Cocina and Aramark Collegiate Hospitality; Nishant Roy, Chief Impact Officer, Chobani; Deena Shanker, Writer, Bloomberg Businessweek; Chef Sean Sherman, Founder and Executive Director, NĀTIFS (North American Traditional Indigenous Food Systems); Janae Yates, New York-based drummer, composer, and bandleader who studied at Juilliard and has performed at Lincoln Center and internationally; and Andrew Zimmern, Emmy- and James Beard Award-winning chef, television host, author, and food advocate.

“Chefs Save the World” will feature a special musical performance by Nick T. Daly, an actor, singer, and dancer currently appearing Off-Broadway in The Heart; previously in MJ the Musical on Broadway. He will be joined by Elijah Caldwell, an OBIE Award-winning actor, singer, pianist, and music director whose credits include A Strange Loop Off-Broadway and the national tour of Shucked.

This summit will be streamed live on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel, here. Join the Food Tank newsletter list for reminders, and click here for Food Tank’s full lineup of events at Climate Week NYC 2026.

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 Chefs Driving Climate Action at Climate Week NYC appeared first on Food Tank.

A federal appeals court has used a decades-long water crisis in one of the Blackest cities in America to rule that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee Americans the right to clean and safe drinking water.

The September 4 ruling came even after Jackson, Mississippi, residents alleged officials knew the water was contaminated and assured the public it was safe. To this point, the appellate court also ruled that the Constitution does not offer citizens the “right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”

The ruling signals that Black residents may face the most serious consequences of unsafe or failing water systems while having limited ability to seek a remedy through the Constitution. At the same time, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has already determined that the city could not receive support through the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

What is happening in Jackson matters because federal data shows Black communities are more likely than white communities to be served by water systems with health-based Safe Drinking Water Act violations. Research has also found that systems in communities with larger Black populations take much longer to be fixed or improved. 

Read Next Chicago has the most lead pipes in the nation. We mapped them all. Keerti Gopal, Peter Aldhous, Clayton Aldern, Amy Qin, & Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco

“Jackson residents did everything this country tells poor people to do. They organized, they testified, they boiled their water, they filed suit, they trusted the courts. And at every step the answer has been no,” said Danyelle Holmes, a senior national organizer with Mississippi’s Poor People’s Campaign.

Jackson is more than 80 percent Black and has a poverty rate that is more than double the national average.

“What it signals is that the law has told a majority-Black capital city that its suffering is real but its remedy does not exist,” Holmes added.

How did the court come to this decision? 

The lawsuit that spurred the federal appeals court ruling was first brought by Jackson residents who alleged that city officials knowingly allowed lead-contaminated water to reach their homes and then misled the public about whether it was safe to drink. The suit also alleged that state authorities violated civil rights law by repeatedly sending federal money earmarked for drinking water safety to white communities rather than Jackson.

The plaintiffs sued Jackson and former Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba in 2022, arguing that the city’s actions violated their constitutional right to bodily integrity under the 14th Amendment. They sought damages and changes to how the city manages and communicates about its water system.

“Nearly all of the residents of Jackson have watched brackish, dirty, impure, and undrinkable water trickle from their taps. At times, some have had no water at all,” Jackson residents said in 2022. 

In the September 4 ruling, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the case. Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote that while access to safe water is “important,” it is not a right “deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition,” the standard the court used to decide whether it is protected by the Constitution.

Jackson residents also argued that the alleged false assurances by officials about the water violated their right to make informed decisions about their health. Engelhardt rejected that claim, writing that “lying about the presence of lead in the water is a far cry from the state’s physically extracting evidence from a criminal suspect or conducting an invasive medical procedure without consent.” 

Read Next Trump ordered to release billions in climate grants meant for Black communities Adam Mahoney, Capital B

Engelhardt acknowledged the alleged harm, but wrote: “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing.” 

Judge Catharina Haynes dissented in part, arguing that the residents had plausibly alleged that Jackson violated their right to bodily integrity by knowingly placing them in danger.

“They did not say the water was safe. They said even if everything the residents alleged is true, the Constitution owes them nothing,” Holmes said about the ruling.

In response to the ruling, John Horhn, Jackson’s mayor, said in a statement: “We are pleased that the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal of these claims. The City remains committed to the health, safety, and well-being of every Jackson resident.”

What exactly is wrong with Jackson’s water? 

As Capital B has documented, Jackson’s water crisis has plagued the city long before it made national headlines in 2021. Residents like Brooke Floyd, who as a child watched her grandmother complain about the water decades ago, have said that the water contamination has impacted their families for generations. 

“I do think the ruling would’ve been different if the majority of our city looked different, was in a different tax bracket, and had a different ZIP code, but alas, we probably wouldn’t have had the problems to begin with,” Floyd told Capital B after the ruling. “The problem the rest of America needs to worry about is, while they were making sure not to guarantee me my rights, they were quietly taking yours, too.”

Others, like Gwendolyn Reed-Davis, have spent years driving long distances to family members’ homes to wash clothes and bathe. 

Reed-Davis attributes her school-age children’s learning problems and her kidney infection to decades of exposure to the city’s contaminated water. Dozens of studies have shown that lead exposure leads to cognitive impairment for life, even decades after initial exposure. And the biggest factor for lead poisoning in America is race, namely being Black, even more so than poverty.

Read Next Mississippi officials saw the Jackson water crisis coming — and did nothing Lylla Younes

Time and time again, Floyd said, Jackson has been left to fend for itself and had its issues downplayed by government bodies. 

“Isn’t that how it goes? The oppressor telling the oppressed that they haven’t been discriminated against,” she told Capital B in 2024.

The failures are the result of decades of deferred maintenance, aging treatment equipment, leaking and breaking water mains, staffing shortages, and a shrinking revenue base that left the city unable to keep pace with needed repairs. 

The EPA warned in a March 2020 emergency order that conditions in Jackson’s system presented an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to residents, citing problems with treatment and distribution infrastructure. Then, in February 2021, severe winter weather froze equipment and ruptured lines, leaving tens of thousands of residents without running water for weeks. A year later, flooding and failures at the O.B. Curtis Water Treatment Plant triggered another citywide emergency, prompting federal intervention and the appointment of a third-party manager to rebuild the system.

As the city attempts to strengthen its water system, residents are increasingly being asked to finance the improvements. JXN Water, the federally appointed manager overseeing the city’s water and sewer system, says it has improved operations and brought in more revenue, but the utility remains under federal oversight. 

In March, a court-approved rate increase of about 12 percent raised the average residential water-and-sewer bill by roughly $8.88 a month, to about $88. JXN Water’s financial plan now proposes an added 10 percent increase in spring 2027, followed by proposed hikes of 9 percent in 2028 and 8 percent in 2029. That adds up for a city with so many residents living in poverty. 

“We are organizing, we are marching to the polls, and we are not waiting on a court to tell us our lives are worth clean water,” Holmes said in response to the cascading rulings and water issues. “As the Poor People’s Campaign teaches us, this is not about left and right. It is about right and wrong, and everybody knows which one Jackson has received.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Federal court rules there is no constitutional right to safe drinking water on Sep 19, 2026.

On Friday morning, Sept. 25, Food Tank will host the “Water and Blue Foods Summit” at Climate Week NYC 2026, in partnership with Future Food Institute, Monterey Bay Aquarium, and Venice Climate Week.

Water connects every aspect of our food systems, public health, ecosystems, and communities. The summit will bring together leaders working across oceans, fisheries, blue foods, water, climate, public health, and global justice to explore how healthier aquatic ecosystems and communities can help build a more peaceful, equitable, and resilient future.

“We began this journey in Venice, during our Climate Week, promoting a simple but radical idea: we are citizens of a water planet, our ‘Planet Aqua.’ Water is the resource of life, and the blue resource—in all its forms—must be addressed from every perspective: from food to energy, from ecosystems to human health, mental health and longevity,” says Sara Roversi, President of the Future Food Institute, Founder of Paideia Campus, and producer of the Venice Climate Week.

“This is why we are proud to continue this conversation in New York with Food Tank: because water cannot be a topic we discuss once a year. It must become a daily priority for regeneration, prosperity and planetary care.”

Panel discussions will explore both global and national perspectives on blue communities, blue food, and fisheries, as well as water crises and water bankruptcy.

“Climate change is transforming our ocean, creating challenges for coastal communities around the world. In the Mediterranean Sea, warmer waters have contributed to the spread of blue swimming crab, an invasive species that is disrupting marine ecosystems and threatening local fisheries and livelihoods,” says Wendy Norden, Global Programs Director of Global Ocean Conservation at Monterey Bay Aquarium.

“Some countries are finding ways to turn this challenge into an opportunity that benefits both people and the environment, and we look forward to sharing these stories of resilience and collaboration at the Water and Blue Foods Summit.”

Speakers include Jenn Kemmerly, Vice President of Global Ocean Conservation, Monterey Bay Aquarium; David Laborde, Director, Agrifood Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Riccardo Luna, Co-Curator, Venice Climate Week; Kaveh Madani, Director, United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health; Sarisher Mann, Director of Sustainable Finance Engagement, BNP Paribas; Kathleen McDavitt, Senior Programs Manager for North America, Aquaculture Stewardship Council; Laura McDearis, US Program Director, Marine Stewardship Council; Lela Nargi, Journalist and Author; Danielle Nierenberg, President, Food Tank; Wendy Norden, Director of Science and Global Strategies, Monterey Bay Aquarium; Joshua Perry, Seafood Coordinator, NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets; Stefano Pisani, Mayor of Pollica, Italy, and Mediterranean Diet Advocate; Sara Roversi, Founder, Future Food Institute; Carlotta Santolini, Marine Biologist and Group Leader, Blueat La Pescheria Sostineble; Barton Seaver, Chef, Author Sustainability Fellow at the New England Aquarium, and Director of the Sustainable Seafood and Health Initiative at Harvard; Brendan Shane, Director of Philanthropy Special Projects and Climate Advisor, Trust for Public Land; Michael Sheldrick, Co-Founder and Chief Policy, Impact & Government Relations Officer, Global Citizen; Simone Venturini, Mayor of Venice; and Kate Warren, Executive Vice President and Executive Editor, Devex.

The event will kick off at WNYC-NPR Studios’ The Greene Space in New York City at 6:35pm with light food and live musical performances, followed by a reception until 9:30pm.

The “Water and Blue Foods Summit” will feature special musical performances by Blu Allen, a Broadway actor, singer, and dancer currently appearing in MJ the Musical, with previous credits including Titanique. He will be joined by Elijah Caldwell, an OBIE Award-winning actor, singer, pianist, and music director whose credits include A Strange Loop Off-Broadway and the national tour of Shucked.

The event will be streamed live on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel, here. Join the Food Tank newsletter list for reminders, and click here for Food Tank’s full lineup of events at Climate Week NYC 2026.

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 Why Blue Foods Matter to the Future of Food appeared first on Food Tank.

Food Tank, in partnership with Whole Foods Market, will kick off Climate Week NYC 2026 on the evening of Sunday, September 20, by hosting “Putting Farmers First: How Young Farmers Are Shaping the Future of Food.” The free event will celebrate the next generation of farmers and food systems leaders who are redefining agriculture through innovation, resilience, and climate leadership.

Farmers in the United States are facing a generational challenge. While the number of new and young producers is beginning to rise, farmers overall are getting older: The average age of U.S. producers increased from 56.3 in 2012 to 58.1 in 2022. At the same time, the total number of farms fell by about 7 percent between 2017 and 2022.

This makes supporting young and beginning producers increasingly important. New farmers face significant barriers to entering and staying in agriculture, including access to affordable land and capital, housing, health care, production costs, and climate-related risks.

“At Whole Foods Market, we believe that investing in the next generation of farmers is one of the most important things we can do—for our food system, for our customers, and for our planet,” says Sonya Gafsi Oblisk, Chief Merchandising & Marketing Officer at Whole Foods Market and Vice President of Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores Private Brands & Marketing.

“We’re proud to partner with Food Tank during Climate Week to put their voices front and center, because when farmers thrive, we all thrive.”

Sessions will include a young farmer storyteller panel with an immersive video and tasting experience. Panelists will explore what it means to be a farmer today, how to work better with farmers, and how to elevate farmers’ voices among those influential in this space.

A panel of three consumer packaged goods company CEOs who have signed the pledge to support farmers—Brita Lundberg of Lundberg Family Farms, Becca Millstein of Fishwife, and Anna Turrell of Mars Snacking—will also join the stage. The discussion will explore how to humanize the farmer connection for consumers, why supporting farmers is a winning business angle, and the need for greater transparency from food companies.

The event will kick off at WNYC-NPR Studios’ The Greene Space in New York City at 6:30pm with food, drink, and live musical performances, followed by a reception until 9:40pm.

Speakers include Jason Buechel, Vice President, Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores and Chief Executive Officer, Whole Foods Market; Amalia Colón-Nava, Farmer and Co-Director, Dirtbaby Farm; Michelle Hughes, Executive Director, National Young Farmers Coalition; Sarah Jones, Jones Farms Organic, Hooper, Colorado; DeVonne Jackson Perez, Brooklyn-based Urban Farmer and Sustainability Educator; Emily Grant, R&S Acres, diversified/livestock farmer, Genesee County; Caitlin Liebert, Head of Sustainability, Worldwide Grocery, Whole Foods Market; Brita Lundberg, Fourth-Generation Farmer, Lundberg Family Farms; Becca Millstein, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Fishwife; Danielle Nierenberg, President, Food Tank; Sonya Gafsi Oblisk, Chief Merchandising & Marketing Officer, Whole Foods Market and Vice President, Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores Private Brands & Marketing; and Anna Turrell, Global Chief Sustainability Officer, Mars Snacking.

“Putting Farmers First: How Young Farmers Are Shaping the Future of Food” will feature a special musical performance by Tristen Buettel, Broadway actor, singer, and dancer currently appearing in Just in Time, where she covers Connie Francis and Sandra Dee, following roles in BOOP! The Musical, Bad Cinderella, and Jersey Boys. She will be joined by Cullen Curth, New York City-based pianist, music director, and conductor who recently made his Broadway conducting debut with Just in Time.

This summit will be streamed live on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube Channel, here. Join the Food Tank newsletter list for reminders, and click here for Food Tank’s full lineup of events at Climate Week NYC 2026.

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 Young Farmers Shaping the Future of Food appeared first on Food Tank.

Headline News:

• “Scientists Hope Deeper-Rooted Soybeans Can Withstand Climate Extremes And Store More Carbon” • For years, scientists have explored ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Now, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies are testing whether deeper root systems could become another tool, with a grant from the Bezos Earth Fund. [ABC News]

Growing soybeans (Nicholas A Tonelli, CC BY-SA 2.0)

• “Trump’s War On Wind Turbines Takes Another Ludicrous Turn” • The US DOE created the Integrated Energy Systems Office to combine the former Solar Energy Technologies Office and Wind Energy Technologies Office. It lists advanced PVs and a number of other technologies, including “aeromechanical energy systems.” [CleanTechnica]
• “Neptun Smulders Signs A 2-GW LanWin3 Platform Deal” • 50Hertz and Neptun Smulders Offshore Renewables have signed a contract for the construction of a 2-GW offshore converter for the LanWin3 North Sea grid connection project. 50Hertz said Siemens Energy is responsible for supplying the high-voltage components for LanWin3. [reNews]
• “Federal Judge Rules The EPA Illegally Terminated A $7 Billion Solar Program Needy Americans” • The Trump EPA illegally terminated a $7 billion Solar for All program intended to make solar power accessible to over 900,000 low-income Americans, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled. District Judge Mary McElroy vacated the termination. [ABC News]
• “Space-Based Solar Power Could Reach The Grid By 2028” • As the world rushes to build up more energy generating capacity in a rush to keep up with demand from data center hyperscalers, the public and private sectors alike are increasingly adopting an all-of-the-above approach to energy. That includes putting solar panels into space. [OilPrice.com]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

When Shell first put its longstanding Woodcreek headquarters campus in Houston on the market, the broad outline was already striking.

The company was seeking roughly $325 million for a campus of almost 1.5 million square feet while planning to lease back only a little more than half of it on a long-term basis. More than 700,000 square feet appeared destined to be released over time. (Houston Chronicle)

The latest investment-marketing material now fills in much more of the picture.

And the detail makes clear that this is not just a property sale.

It is a carefully structured reduction in Shell’s long-term U.S. office footprint.

Exactly how much Woodcreek does Shell intend to keep?

According to the current listing for the Woodcreek campus, Shell USA intends to take a 15-year lease on 780,161 square feet, representing 53% of the campus’s net rentable area. (LoopNet)

That long-term space consists of:

• 100% of Building E;
• 100% of Building F;
• and one floor of Building A.

At the same time, Shell would take only a three-year master lease on the remaining floors of Building A and all of Buildings B, C and D. (LoopNet)

That confirms the significance of the structure first reported in August.

Shell is not abandoning the rest of Woodcreek immediately.

Instead, the transaction appears designed to give the new owner three years of Shell-backed rental income while Shell progressively exits the balance of the campus.

The distinction matters.

The 15-year component represents the headquarters footprint Shell appears prepared to retain.

The three-year component looks much more like transition space.

Shell’s long-term rent would start at about half market level

The financial structure is particularly revealing.

The investment listing says Shell’s 15-year lease would begin at $18.50 net per square foot, described as approximately 50% of market rent, with annual increases of 3%. (LoopNet)

The shorter three-year lease covering the space Shell is expected eventually to vacate would instead begin at market rent, also with 3% annual increases. (LoopNet)

In other words, the prospective buyer is being offered two quite different income streams.

For three years, Shell would continue paying market rent on the larger temporary footprint.

For the core space Shell intends to retain for 15 years, the starting rent would be materially below prevailing market levels.

The marketing material explicitly says that the long-term leaseback is being structured at a fraction of market rent in order to reduce Shell’s occupancy costs. (LoopNet)

That is an important addition to the story.

Shell is not simply monetising a real-estate asset.

It is also apparently using the transaction to reset its future occupancy costs substantially lower.

$345.7 million of lease income

The numbers attached to the lease structure are substantial.

Excluding expense reimbursements, the marketing material says Shell’s structured leases would produce approximately $345.7 million in net operating income, of which around $116.3 million would be paid during the first three years. (LoopNet)

That helps explain the attraction to a potential buyer.

The purchaser would acquire a large Houston corporate campus backed initially by Shell rental income across the entire property, while having three years to reposition, re-lease or redevelop the space Shell ultimately intends to vacate.

From Shell’s perspective, the logic runs in the opposite direction.

The company receives the proceeds from selling the property, reduces its permanent physical footprint and locks in a long-term rental rate on its retained headquarters space that is being marketed as roughly half of market.

That is a much more sophisticated transaction than a straightforward headquarters sale.

Still no buyer — and no confirmed sale price

One important question remains unanswered.

There is still no publicly identified buyer for Woodcreek and no confirmed final transaction price.

The figure of approximately $325 million remains the reported marketing level, not evidence of a completed deal. (Houston Chronicle)

That distinction should be maintained until a sale actually closes.

A prospective price and an achieved sale price are not the same thing.

It will therefore be worth watching whether the property ultimately sells near the $325 million figure, whether the lease terms change during negotiations, or whether Shell modifies the amount of space it intends to retain.

Jiffy Lube is already leaving Woodcreek

There is another concrete development.

On 17 September 2026, REBusinessOnline reported that Jiffy Lube has signed a 28,000-square-foot headquarters lease at Westway Plaza in West Houston and is relocating from the Shell Woodcreek campus. (REBusinessOnline)

That move comes after Shell agreed to sell Jiffy Lube to Monomoy Capital Partners.

The relocation is comparatively small beside the scale of Woodcreek as a whole, but it is nevertheless another visible example of activity leaving the campus.

And it reinforces the broader point.

Woodcreek is already beginning to function less like a single, permanently consolidated Shell corporate campus and more like a property in transition.

Aberdeen: still no numbers

The contrast with Aberdeen is interesting.

Shell confirmed in August that certain development, subsurface and wells roles would move from Aberdeen to London in 2027 as part of changes to its global upstream organisation. (Press and Journal)

Shell said the majority of the affected roles support its global operations rather than UK operations based in Aberdeen. (Press and Journal)

But nearly a month later, the central numerical questions remain unanswered.

Shell has still not publicly disclosed:

the number of employees expected to relocate;

the number who may decline to move;

whether any redundancies will ultimately result;

or whether further functions will be transferred from Aberdeen.

BBC reporting likewise noted that Shell had not disclosed the number of jobs involved. (BBC Mirror)

So the Aberdeen story remains important, but presently unchanged in evidential terms.

Woodcreek, by contrast, has become considerably clearer.

A wider pattern in Shell’s corporate geography

Taken together, Woodcreek and Aberdeen illustrate something broader about the modern Shell organisation.

The company is concentrating people and functions into fewer hubs.

In Aberdeen, certain global technical roles are being moved to London.

In Houston, Shell is seeking to sell its historic headquarters campus and retain only 53% of it on a long-term basis.

The remaining Woodcreek space would be covered by Shell for just three years before becoming available to the purchaser for other uses. (LoopNet)

Shell describes these kinds of changes in terms of efficiency, collaboration, competitiveness and optimising its real-estate footprint.

Those descriptions may all be accurate.

But the physical consequences are equally clear.

Shell is reducing the amount of office space it intends to occupy permanently.

In Houston, we can now put a precise number on it:

780,161 square feet retained long term.

Everything else is transitional.

And if the proposed Woodcreek transaction completes on the advertised terms, Shell will have achieved something else at the same time: converting a large owned headquarters campus into cash while securing its retained U.S. headquarters space at a starting rent marketed at roughly half the prevailing market level.

That makes Woodcreek one of the more revealing examples yet of Shell’s continuing effort to shrink, consolidate and financially restructure its corporate office footprint.

Shell’s Woodcreek Retreat Comes Into Sharper Focus: 780,161 Sq Ft Retained, Three-Year Exit for the Rest was first posted on September 19, 2026 at 9:27 am.
©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

Updated: Renewables met more than 80 per cent of total grid demand for first time over a weekend that also saw record levels of rooftop PV and new demand lows.

The post Renewables hit more than 80 pct of grid demand for first time – despite heavy throttling of wind and solar appeared first on Renew Economy.

BC Ferries recently announced a purchase of four major new vessels from a shipyard in China. This decision has sparked criticism from trade unions and others, who argue the ferries should have been commissioned from domestic shipyards.

New research from the Centre for Future Work confirms that the decision to import the ferries, rather than domestic procurement, imposed a significant foregone economic cost on the province.

Sourcing an equivalent value of shipbuilding from domestic yards would generate $1.5 billion in additional GDP in Canada (85% of that in B.C.), over 10,000 person-years of employment, and would return over $400 million in additional revenue to government coffers (providing a financial basis for public support for future procurement).

The report reviewed the current scale of shipbuilding in B.C. and Canada, highlighting the strong employment growth in the sector over the past 15 years (largely due to a pro-active procurement strategy for Navy and Coast Guard ships from the federal government). It reviewed the role of active industrial policy in supporting shipbuilding in other major producers – including the U.S., China, and Europe.

It also surveyed the current capabilities of B.C.’s shipbuilding sector, identifying gaps that should be addressed in order to ensure the industry can source future ferry procurement from the provincial ferry operator.

The report concluded with several recommendations, including:

1. Establish a Ministerial-level task force to coordinate the development and implementation of a robust provincial shipbuilding strategy.
2. Amend contractual and fiscal arrangements with BC Ferries to require the firm to maximize economic benefits from domestic procurement of future vessels.
3. Commitment to accelerate the electrification of ferries, and development of B.C. technological and industrial expertise in electric vessels.
4. Formation of a consortium of firms to organize and plan the expansion of future shipbuilding capacity in B.C.
5. The provincial government should be prepared to take equity stakes in future ventures.

1. A strong marine sector workforce development strategy to ensure a steady and adequate supply of skilled workers for the shipbuilding and marine sectors.

Please see the full report, The Economic Benefits of Ferry Construction in B.C., by Jim Stanford, Blair Redlin, and David Fairey.

A video reviewing the main findings of the report, recorded during a public launch event, is available on the Centre for Future Work’s YouTube channel.

The report generated numerous media articles, including:

• Newspaper articles in the Vancouver Sun, the Toronto Star, and numerous other outlets.
• Television coverage on CHEK TV and other stations.
• A feature interview on the Jas Johal Show on CKNW Radio.

The post B.C. Missed an Economic Opportunity by Importing New Ferries From China, Rather than Building them Here appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Albertans will vote on October 19 in an unusual ‘referendum on a referendum’, initiated by the Alberta government of Premier Danielle Smith. The referendum asks voters whether they prefer to stay part of Canada, or prefer to initiate a process of negotiation and preparation fo0r a binding referendum on separation some time in the future.

Many economic, business, and civil society leaders have warned of the economic risks and costs of even a significant threat of Alberta independence, let alone outright separation. But working people are especially exposed to those risks, for several reasons: they need employment, they depend disproportionately on federal income supports (like CPP, EI, and the Canada Child Benefit), they depend on unions and labour standards to negotiate their wages, and they are less mobile across borders than investors or high-income households.

The Centre for Future Work has explored the particular risks facing Alberta workers from the separatist movement, in a new report published in conjunction with the Alberta Federation of Labour.

The report challenges several of the myths propagated by the separatist movement – in particular, claims that an independent Alberta would be richer, have lower taxes, and more opportunity to sell products to other countries.

It also reviews several statistical indicators of declining living standards for Alberta workers in recent years. It finds that Alberta workers are quite right to be angry about stagnant wages, falling purchasing power, and growing insecurity in the province – but those problems should not be blamed on a distant federal government. Rather, they result from problems right at home in Alberta, in particular the distorted playing field of labour relations, which has undermined the bargaining power of Alberta workers to negotiate better jobs and wages.

The economic pie in Alberta has been growing: oil and gas production and export set new records every year, and output per worker is the highest in Canada. But labour’s share of that economic pie (in wages, salaries, and benefits) has been shrinking faster than in any other province, and average wages now barely match the Canadian national average.

The report concludes that by defeating the false hopes of separation, workers in Alberta can refocus their rightful anger on the task of reforming Alberta’s labour and economic policies, so that the province’s abundant wealth can be shared more fairly.

Please see the full report, False Promises, Big Dangers: How Separation Would Hurt Alberta Workers, by Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

The report generated abundant media coverage, including:

• Newspaper articles in the Calgary Herald and the Lethbridge Herald.
• Interviews on CBC Radio and 880 CHED.
• A feature interview with Ryan Jesperson’s Real Talk video podcast.
• A commentary in The Tyee, targeting the myth that Alberta ‘subsidizes’ the rest of Canada.

The post Workers are Especially Exposed to the Economic Risks of Alberta Separation appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Launch of $72.5 million Heat Pump Rebate Program provides opportunity to deliver immediate economic relief for Maryland households facing massive heating cost spikes

 

BALTIMORE, MD — As Maryland residents who rely on heating oil and propane are expected to see winter heating bills spike as much as 31%, the Maryland Clean Heat Coalition today submitted comments urging the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) to use more than $72 million in recently approved funding as part of its Heat Pump Rebate Program to target low- and moderate-income households on delivered fuels and electric resistance. The General Assembly included this funding in its fiscal year 2027 budget.

Delivered fuels such as propane and heating oil, used by roughly 10% of Maryland households, are some of the most expensive ways to heat a home in Maryland today. Thanks to the ongoing war in Iran, federal price estimates reveal heating oil prices have increased 120% since January. Residents who rely on inefficient electric resistance heating are likewise exposed to mounting energy bills due to data center demand and requests by utilities to increase profit margins. Targeting low-income residents for heat pump upgrades, who disproportionately rely on these technologies for home heating, can deliver $350 million in energy cost savings per year by 2050, according to the Sierra Club Maryland Chapter and the Center for Progressive Reform. 

“Ahead of the heating season, thousands of low- and moderate-income households across Maryland are experiencing sticker shock as they purchase delivered fuels for the winter,” said Anne Havemann, Deputy Director at Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “These households are facing the worst of the energy affordability crisis, and Maryland must work quickly to help. That’s why we are urging policymakers to ensure that $72 million in funding passed by lawmakers this past legislative session is used to upgrade households on delivered fuels and electric resistance with efficient heat pumps.”

To maximize savings, Maryland must ensure quality installations and build the pool of experienced contractors across the state. In their recommendations, advocates stressed the importance of investing in workforce development programs and streamlined processes to ensure contractor participation in the program. That includes a statewide heat pump contractor network, similar to one in Maine, where verified contractors can be matched with Maryland residents and access training resources.

“Contractors will be on the front lines of implementing Maryland’s Heat Pump Rebate Program,” said Sean Mallonee, of SM Mechanical and President of Heating and Air Conditioning Contractors of Maryland.“To ensure they are supported, policymakers must partner with manufacturers and educational institutions to provide contractors with the required technical training. The state must also create streamlined processes that ease the barriers to entry and participation for contractors while also ensuring those contractors are legitimate to protect homeowners as well.  By creating a Heat Pump Rebate Program that supports licensed contractors, Maryland will not only accelerate the adoption of heat pumps but also create good-paying jobs in the process with consumer protection in place.”

The coalition urged MEA to structure the Heat Pump Rebate Program to align with the state’s forthcoming Clean Heat Rules, a set of complementary policies that would phase in zero-emission heating equipment in Maryland households to lower energy bills and invest in healthier air statewide. MEA should also coordinate with other state and utility programs, including EmPOWER Maryland, to braid resources and offer households incentives for wrap-around services that can deliver greater savings, including energy efficiency upgrades and weatherization.

“A whole-house approach to electrification has been proven to lower energy bills, improve indoor air quality, and enhance comfort,” said Ruth Ann Norton, president and CEO of the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative. “That is why policies such as the Heat Pump Rebate Program must be designed to work in tandem with Maryland’s upcoming Clean Heat Rules and energy efficiency program, EmPOWER. By doing so, Maryland can comprehensively address safety, structure, and energy-inefficiency issues in a home, delivering major economic benefits and quality of life improvements for residents.”

Failing to upgrade residents on the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland with zero-emission equipment risks locking in rising energy bills and long-term pollution impacts of fossil fuel heating. Gas utilities are working to expand their networks in these regions despite having some of the highest rates in the entire state—nearly $1 per therm higher than other Maryland utilities. Households will not only lose out on greater savings achieved by heat pumps, but be saddled with the mounting costs of maintaining Maryland’s aging gas system. If Maryland fails to quickly upgrade households on delivered fuels with heat pumps, they could be locked into the polluting gas system for at least another 15 years.

“Switching Maryland households on delivered fuels to methane gas isn’t a viable solution, especially as gas prices rise,” said Bryan Dunning, senior policy analyst at Center for Progressive Reform. “Letting utilities expand the polluting gas system to more households risks hooking residents on a stranded asset. Instead, the focus should be on switching to efficient electric systems that will bear long-term energy and health savings to ratepayers.”

Additional statements from organizations can be found below:

“Nearly 42% of Maryland households reported struggling to pay their utility bill last year, indicating the extent of the state’s energy affordability crisis,” said Rev. Catherine Manhardt, climate equity team leader at the Maryland Just Power Alliance. “As families struggle to get by, there are steps that policymakers can take to provide immediate relief. That includes transitioning low- and moderate-income homes with inefficient electric resistance systems or delivered fuels to efficient electric heat pumps, which can provide thousands of dollars in savings.”

“Households relying on delivered fuels and inefficient electric resistance to heat their homes are set to face skyrocketing energy costs this winter,” said Tony Sirna, deputy policy director at Evergreen Action. “It’s why advocates are urging policymakers to design and quickly distribute $72 in funding that targets these energy-burdened households with heat pump upgrades that are proven to lower energy bills.”

###

The post Maryland Clean Heat Coalition Urges Policymakers to Prioritize Upgrading Homes on Delivered Fuels with Heat Pumps  appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Platform represents major improvement upon status quo, but communities in crisis need immediate relief through pause on data center development

 

RICHMOND, VA — Governor Abigail Spanberger released today her “Data Center Accountability Framework,” which includes a combination of executive actions and policy endorsements to protect communities and the environment from data centers. Several of the endorsed policies take notable steps to address on-site pollution, rising energy bills associated with data center infrastructure and demand, and community impacts. However, the platform does not include a pause on data center development or a ban on on-site gas generation for primary power. Communities around the Commonwealth are calling for a moratorium on data center approvals until comprehensive policy guardrails are in place to protect communities and the environment, a platform called “Pause to Protect.”

Victoria Higgins, Virginia Director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), issued the following statement:

“We appreciate that the Governor’s platform takes several major steps forward, but also that communities facing data center development are in crisis right now. We need a pause on data center approvals until water-tight environmental and community protections are on the books and being enforced. Scientists are begging policymakers to take decisive action yesterday to stop runaway climate change, while the Trump Administration moves to allow limitless pollution. We must stop the madness and issue an immediate pause on approvals until these protections – and more – are fully implemented.”

CCAN is supportive of policy proposals to ensure that data centers pay for infrastructure they incentivize the incumbent utility to build, procure their own clean energy resources, ban Non-Disclosure Agreements, eliminate by-right development, and close regulatory loopholes that allow diesel generation to escape compliance with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. While the Governor’s platform suggests strong limits on behind-the-meter, or directly-connected, gas turbines as a means of primary power for data centers, CCAN advocates for an all-out ban on such on-site gas generation. 

#   #   #

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC.

The post Spanberger Data Center Platform Takes Steps Forward, But Communities Still Need “Pause to Protect” appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

(Washington—Sept. 17, 2026) — The House of Representatives this week passed three bipartisan, Audubon-supported bills that would significantly improve habitat that birds, people, and communities...

Eight left-wing books on the rise, ideas, and goals of the new far right

Source