J2. Fossil Fuel Industry

“Sorry, we don’t have single-use cups.” During the hot and humid summer weekends in Guangzhou, China, now you can enjoy a refreshing cup of iced coffee or juice in a more environment-friendly way – to “rent” a cup from a nearby reusable cup rental station, by scanning the QR code on the cup with your phone, and no deposit needed. After finishing your favorite drink, just remember to return the cup by scanning the QR code again on a returning machine.

Renting a cup instead of using a single-use one is a great way to reduce plastic waste. On June 21-22 at Poly Sunny Walk (Taojin), consumers were introduced to this new lifestyle on the Reuse Day. "It's a breeze!" a consumer told the reporter after having the coffee.

More and more people begin to engage in green actions to protect the health of themselves as well as the earth as a whole, including not using single-use plastic products, and embracing zero-waste practices. In the spirit of environmental protection, the first Reuse Day in China was successfully held in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, with the aim to advocate reuse, reduce plastic waste and cut carbon emissions. It was co-organized by Plastic Free China, Jingcao Carnival of Society of Entrepreneurs & Ecology, One Planet Foundation, and Green Pir; and partnered with Ecobuzz to supply the reusable cups. The event was also pleased to have Patagonia, China Zero Waste Alliance, Herbeast and Poly Sunny Walk as sustainability partners, and volunteers from DBS Technology China Volunteer Service Team.

In addition, the first Reuse Day was honored to have Angie Chiu Ngar Chi, actress, and Xu Jiaqi, actress and singer, as Ambassadors, calling on more public engagement in everyday actions that advocates sustainable lifestyle and green consumption habits, in response to building the Beautiful China and Ecological China.

According to Plastic Free China, the Reuse Day attracted over 33,000 visitors in total. The main event was held in Guangzhou, with satellite events in Beijing and Shanghai, bringing together environmental organizations and businesses from across the Greater Bay Area and the nation. The Reuse Day is the first cross-regional program in China that focuses on reuse, and develops a new route to integrate public welfare activities and regional cooperation. It promotes deeper integration in environmental technology and green consumption across the Greater Bay Area, injecting new momentum into regional synergy for building the Beautiful China.

In 2023, more than 410 million tons of plastic were produced around the world, but only less than 9% of them were finally recycled. In big cities in China, for each ton of waste, incineration costs 518 yuan, and landfill, 1,189 yuan. Single-use plastics seem inexpensive, while our environment and society suffer – incineration and landfilling pollute the environment, and plastics eventually break down into microplastics that make their way back into our bodies through the food chain.

Packaging is deeply rooted in the modern lifestyle. Fortunately, people start to look for more environment-friendly alternatives to replace the ubiquitous single-use packaging. In the widely accepted 3Rs principle, namely, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, reuse is the core solution that focuses on reduction at the source.

So, what is reuse? “Reuse is all about using an item more than once. It means the item is used over and over again, for the same purpose without changing how it works or its condition, usually not recycled or only slightly repaired,” Zheng Xue, Director-general of Plastic Free China, explained. Take your own bag for shopping, go to a bulk or zero-waste store, and go downstairs with your own cup to get a refreshing coffee during exam week or work – these are typical examples of reuse. And, when you were young, you carried the empty bottle to the kiosk for soy sauce, or grabbed a bowl to buy tofu pudding nearby for breakfast, which are also very early examples of the latest lifestyle.

In the field of packaging, the reuse packing system is divided in to four types based on who owns it and where it is used. Namely, they are refilling at home, refilling at a designated place, returning at home, and returning at a designated place. At the event, the reusable cup provided by Ecobuzz falls into the category of returning at a designated place.

At the Reuse Day bazaar, Ecobuzz, the designated reusable cup supplier, provided cups of both hot and cold drinks for rental. Each cup has its own identity QR code, and can be recycled through a special recycling system, which improves reuse and same-level recycling efficiency. In this way, fewer raw materials will be used, thus significantly reducing carbon emissions.

Ecobuzz staff also responded to the hygiene concerns from consumers. Otto, project manager of Ecobuzz, said, “Hygiene and safety are our priorities. We have established a professional cleaning and disinfection process. After the cup is returned, our professional team will implement 6 strict processes, that is, inspect, rinse, clean, disinfect, flush, and dry at high temperature. All cups will be manually inspected before they are put back into use. In addition, we will regularly sample the cleaned cups and send to the laboratory for testing, to ensure the cups meet the hygiene standards.”

As green consumption habits of zero plastic and zero waste go popular, bulk and zero-waste shops pop up in cities. Before going to these shops, consumers need to prepare necessary packaging themselves, such as glass bottles, shopping bags, and bags for fresh food. Maxam, a daily chemical product producer, made a special appearance at the Bazaar with its eye-catching bulk laundry detergent and refilling tools. Participants can take the detergent away in their own containers after completing the interaction games at the booth. At the Guangzhou venue, Buy Something Farm Store presented a series of bulk healthy snacks and homemade organic drinks, attracting many to have a try.

More and more daily chemical product producers are joining in this trend, by introducing bagged refills of laundry detergent, clothing conditioner, shampoo and hand soap, so that consumers can refill their empty bottles. Meanwhile, many personal and skin care product producers also have introduced refills and replacement cartridges with lighter packaging and relatively less waste. At the first Reuse Day bazaar, many brands brought a wide range of refill products for consumers to choose from, including Watsons, SukGarden, Dettol, Spes, Curel, Zhuben, and KireiKirei, to name a few. The all-paper decorated booth of BambooComet, a sustainable lifestyle brand, drew the attention of many visitors. Known as a plastic-free home living brand, ranging from product to packaging, it has already received praise from numerous fans for its commitment to zero plastic use. “Buying a pack of BambooComet pocket tissues (160 sheets) means reduction of about 23 small plastic bags, equivalent to at least 25 grams of single-use plastic,” a staff of the brand introduced at the booth.

Zero-waste initiatives, such as second-hand flea markets and repairing instead of discarding, give birth to new businesses as well. The C&P Clothing Art Center, initiated by young people in Guangzhou, along with other clothes-mending booths, offered a variety of services including basic repairs, creative mending, and upcycling. Moreover, these booths offer tailored makeover plans for old clothes with sentimental value, which attracted a lot of attention as well as orders.

In the context of frequent occurrence of extreme weather, people become more aware of the climate change crisis, and more willing to shift to the environment-conscious lifestyle. In the future, reuse will be further integrated to everyday scenarios, and enables everyone to live a life that is convenient, environment-friendly, high-quality, and healthy. At the Reuse Day bazaar stood the art installation, “Reuse Community”, created by the Guangzhou-based artist studio Springflut. It was covered with visitors’ visions and hopes for the future of reuse: "Running into a reuse lifestyle with kitties!" "Living close to neighbors, pursuit for beauty," "A future without illness"... Reuse, it seems, is not only a solution to the environmental crisis, but also a path to a better, healthier, and more harmonious life.

The majority of countries, including the Pacific Small Island Developing States, the European Union, and champion countries in Latin America and Africa, are aligned in key provisions to address the plastic pollution crisis across the life cycle—such as addressing plastic production, banning toxic chemicals, and setting clear financial mechanisms for implementation. Yet, a handful of oil and plastic-producing countries—Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States, among others—have gotten away with obstructing the process, which has been fixated on an unachievable consensus. If ambitious nations want to stop the endless loop of blocked deals, they must find a new path to advance the negotiations.

Despite a lack of space for interventions and restricted access throughout the process, Indigenous Peoples, frontline and fenceline communities, waste pickers, workers, scientists, and civil society have consistently brought their views into the heart of these corporate-heavy negotiations. Their knowledge, experience, and expertise have been instrumental in shifting the narrative on plastic pollution from a narrow focus on marine litter to a widespread affirmation that plastic pollutes throughout its entire life cycle. Their work highlighted countries’ duty to place human health and human rights at the core of the treaty negotiations.

As delegates leave Geneva, observers emphasize the need for a clear and effective process moving forward that ensures the majority of countries can work together to fulfill the mandate that brought them here - to protect the world and future generations from plastic pollution. The last ten days have seen a majority of countries finding further alignment on key elements for an effective treaty, and rejecting a weak treaty text; they must now turn their words into collective and decisive action. Meanwhile, the fight against plastic pollution continues in various forms across the world. Frontline communities are challenging - including through legal avenues - harmful facilities and practices, such as petrochemical production and expansion, incineration, and waste colonialism. NGOs and communities, together with local authorities and (small) businesses, are supporting strong regulatory frameworks at the national and local level, while implementing zero-waste solutions, including reuse and refill systems, paving the path towards a future free from plastic pollution. 

Break Free From Plastic members react to the end of the Plastics Treaty INC-5.2:

Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director, OceanCare (Switzerland), said:

“Despite the disappointing outcome, these negotiations have shown both the best and worst of multilateral diplomacy. We witnessed passionate efforts from over 120 countries – including progressive leaders like Colombia, Panama, Fiji, the UK and the EU – standing firm for science-based measures against enormous pressure from the petrochemical states. The process itself resembled climate COPs more than traditional environmental agreements, with the same fierce resistance from vested interests but also remarkable determination from the majority to push for real action. What's encouraging is that this has built coalitions and raised global awareness about plastic pollution in ways we've never seen before.”

Larisa Orbe, Acción Ecológica México (México), said: 

“Organizations that see the impact of plastic pollution on communities and nature every day will not stop. We will continue to fight for a plastic-free world by promoting policies in our countries that protect us and we are ready to continue supporting our governments in making the best decisions. The last few years have been a great learning experience for the organizations that have followed the negotiations. We are prepared to continue fighting and making progress so that future generations of all living beings can live in a world free of plastics.”

Jo Banner, Co-Founder, The Descendants Project (U.S.), said: 

“Although the current round of negotiations to establish a plastics pollution treaty is a failure, it is a step forward on the path to developing an instrument that will protect frontline communities. Fenceline communities, like mine in “Louisiana’s Cancer Alley,”  suffer immensely from the extraction and production of plastic. It is encouraging to see the majority of countries listening to our interventions and pushing back against petrostates that are aiming to drown us in trash and smother us with toxic chemicals by continuing their advocacy for plastic production. Yet, fenceline community members are still here, more passionate than ever to do their part in establishing an effective treaty. Now it is time for Member States to do theirs. Our movement will only grow stronger as we continue to engage with scientists, finance experts, Indigenous knowledge holders, and other frontline advocates, demanding a stop to plastic production. It is time to break the chains of the modern-day slavery of plastic and free communities who have lived with the sacrifice of their human rights for too long.”

Pui Yi Wong, Researcher at  Basel Action Network (Malaysia), said: 

“This process of negotiation at the plastics treaty INCs is fundamentally flawed. The same arguments have been repeated for more than two years, with no convergence in sight. We should not waste any more precious time and resources doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. The process must be changed, including the consideration of voting for decision-making. The plastic crisis is worsening every second. Importantly for the Global South, millions of kilograms of plastic waste continue to be exported to low-income countries, overwhelming their domestic waste management systems. Several Global South countries had called for prior notification and consent for all plastic waste exports in the treaty agreement, but their demands had been ignored by other member states. This, coupled with no controls on the transparency of chemicals nor planned phase-out of hazardous chemicals, exposes recipient countries and communities to serious harms.”

Rico Euripidou, Chemicals and Campaign Support, groundWork South Africa (South Africa), said: 

“Plastic harms health along its whole life cycle. In particular, the chemicals added to give plastics their properties are where the scientific evidence of the health harms of plastics is strongest. To address the most harmful of these chemicals routinely added to plastics and plastics  products, traceability and tracking of these chemicals must be a mandatory requirement alongside elements to measure the health harms in the future treaty.”

Additional reactions from BFFP members and allies (including additional countries and languages) are being added here.

 

The last 24 hours

The INC-5.2 negotiation process had many flaws and persistent challenges, as demonstrated by the INC Chair’s surprising statement shortly before midnight on what was supposed to be the final scheduled day of negotiations—following hours of delay that left country ministers, delegates, and observers alike waiting and in the dark—wherein he announced that the meeting would be adjourned until a time “to be determined” the following day. Plenary reconvened at 5:30 am with limited advance notice—running the spirits of small delegations from the Global South at a complete and utter loss. The Chair also mentioned that the session would be adjourned after observer interventions, but then adjourned it without doing so—continuing the trend of limited participation for civil society, scientists, wastepickers, and Indigenous Peoples throughout the negotiations. 

###

 

Notes to the editor

• PR translations in several languages will be available here in the next approx 12 hours.
• Photos and videos are available here
• POPLites Daily INC-5.2 Summary here 
• Events to feature:
  • Actions + Press Conferences by BFFP Members and allies
    • Action: “Fix the process. Keep your promise. End Plastic Pollution.”
    • Action opposing the INC Chair’s (first) new draft text 
    • Press conference before the penultimate plenary (which was supposed to be the final plenary)
  • Indigenous Peoples Day press conference
  • Waste Picker press conference
  • Greenpeace “oil” action & banner drop outside of the Palais
  • Press conferences and/or other actions
    • Civil Society press conference
    • GAIA Global South press conference
• (1) CIEL Analysis numbers: The  Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has been tracking how many fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to participate in each round of Plastics Treaty negotiations, beginning at INC-3 in Nairobi, Kenya, and found at least 143 lobbyists at INC-3, 196 lobbyists at INC-4, 220 lobbyists at INC-5, and 234 lobbyists at INC-5.2. These estimates are likely conservative as only those lobbyists that openly disclose their connections were counted.

• What text will be negotiated next? Negotiators will revert back to the Busan text, as both texts presented by the Chair in Geneva were rejected.
• What happens to the INC Chair? The INC Chair is still in place. It’s an elected position.
• What's next for the negotiations? The negotiations will continue, but it’s unclear when and where. The bureau will need to meet and determine that (which is an elected body with representatives from the different UN member regions). Member States could also decide to leave this process altogether and do something different.

About BFFP — #BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 2,700 organizations and 11,000 individual supporters from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain – from extraction to disposal – focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org.

• news@breakfreefromplastic.org 

Let me tell you a story (with the assistance of ChatGBT5)—about barrels that weren’t and a blue-chip oil giant that treated “truth” like a rounding error.

In January 2004, Shell detonated its own credibility by admitting it had been wildly overstating what matters most in the oil game: proved reserves. How wildly? It began with a 3.9 billion-barrel “recategorisation” on 9 January 2004—about 20% of previously claimed reserves—and kept spiraling across multiple follow-ups until 4.47 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) (≈23%) had been pushed out of the “proved” column by May 24, 2004.

The U.S. SEC later said Shell also overstated its standardized future cash flows by about $6.6 billion and juiced a key KPI—its reserves replacement ratio—from a real 80% to an advertised 100% for 1998–2002. 

And then there’s the email—the one executives pray never sees daylight. On 9 November 2003, Shell’s head of Exploration & Production, Walter van de Vijver, wrote to chairman Sir Philip Watts:

“I am becoming sick and tired about lying about the extent of our reserves issues and the downward revisions that need to be done because of far too aggressive/optimistic bookings.”

That’s not a paraphrase. That’s the quote. From Shell’s own internal correspondence, exposed in 2004. 

Fallout: Resignations, Security Escorts, and a Collar

Within weeks of the first cut, the top brass were out. Sir Philip Watts and van de Vijver resigned in March 2004; CFO Judy Boynton was shown the door in April. The Guardian’s contemporaneous reporting is brutal; Reuters’ retrospectives confirm the timing and scope. 

And yes, Watts was escorted from Shell Centre by security—the humiliating capstone to the reserves fiasco, as later reported in the London Evening Standard. Then he pivoted: ordained in 2011 and serving as a Church of England priest thereafter. (The local press covered his parish posting in 2013.) 

Regulators to Shell: Pay Up, Fix It

Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic treated this as exactly what it looked like: a colossal misstatement.

• SEC (U.S.): Shell settled a fraud case over the 4.47bn boe overstatement, agreeing to a $120 million civil penalty, $1 disgorgement, and $5 million toward a compliance program. The SEC’s press release also details the RRR restatement (1998–2002: from 100% to 80%). 

• FSA (U.K.): Issued a Final Notice describing “market abuse” and “particularly serious” misconduct; fined Shell £17 million—a record at the time—and laid out damning chronology and control failures. 

For the legally inclined, the primary documents are still online—read them and weep (or rage):

• SEC Administrative Order & Complaint (overstatements, RRR fixes, $6.6bn standardized cash-flow overstatement): Order No. 34-50233 and the Houston complaint. 

• FSA Final Notice (24 Aug 2004) (the full market-abuse analysis): PDF. 

• Davis Polk & Wardwell Report to Shell’s Audit Committee (31 Mar 2004) (the internal probe Shell wished you wouldn’t read): Executive summary and tabs archived via SEC. 

The Payouts: When “We’re Sorry” Costs Nearly Half a Billion

Once investors lawyered up, Shell started writing checks:

• Non-U.S. investors: initial settlement $352.6m (2007); later the Amsterdam Court of Appeal declared a WCAMsettlement binding in 2009 for $381m. 

• U.S. class action: $89.5m approved in 2008 (District of New Jersey). Shell estimated the total tab for both to be ~$470m. 

What Broke (Besides Trust)

The SEC and FSA record lays it out: Shell’s internal reserves rules didn’t conform to SEC definitions; internal warnings about Nigeria, Oman, Brunei, and Australia (Gorgon) were waved off; and the desire to sustain heroic reserves-replacement optics drove decision-making. The FSA details how exposure catalogues showed billions of boe “at risk”before the public ever heard a word. 

Translation: This wasn’t one rogue estimate. It was a culture problem—with the paper trail to prove it.

Corporate Damage Control (a.k.a. Rebrand and Move On)

Shell promised new controls, overhauled reserves auditing, and governance reforms. Then, in a move not entirely unrelated to the reputational inferno, Royal Dutch and Shell Transport unified into a single parent—Royal Dutch Shell plc—by 2005. 

Greatest-Hits Headlines (Yes, These Are Real)

• “Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and the ‘Shell’ Transport and Trading Company, P.L.C. Pay $120 Million to Settle SEC Fraud Case Involving Massive Overstatement of Proved Hydrocarbon Reserves.” (SEC press release title) 

• “Shell’s shame: FSA spells out abuse.” (The Guardian) 

• “E-mail lifts lid on Shell scandal.” (Pinsent Masons / Out-Law) 

• “Shell Chairman Resigns Over Reserves Shock.” (NYT/Reuters report cited contemporaneously) 

• “Sick and tired about lying.” (The Economist’s headline—about that email)

• Shell Reserves Scandal 2004 (images)

Legal Documents & Core Source Links

• SEC press release (Aug. 24, 2004) – settlement, $120m penalty, $6.6bn standardized cash-flow overstatement, RRR restatement. 

• SEC Administrative Order No. 34-50233 (June 10, 2004) – 4.47bn boe recategorized Jan–May 2004; background and findings. 

• SEC Complaint (S.D. Tex., filed Aug. 24, 2004) – reclassification narrative and legal counts. 

• FSA Final Notice (Aug. 24, 2004) – £17m fine; “market abuse”; internal chronology. 

• Davis Polk & Wardwell Report to Shell’s Audit Committee (Mar. 31, 2004) – internal review structure, findings (archived via SEC). 

Key Context & Confirmations

• Van de Vijver email (“sick and tired of lying”) – reporting and extract. 

• Resignations – Reuters timeline; Guardian coverage; CFO exit. 

• Watts’ escorted exit & ordination – Evening Standard; Maidenhead Advertiser. 

• Non-U.S. and U.S. settlements – Reuters; Stanford Law Securities Class Action. 

Bottom Line (With Feeling)

Shell didn’t just “misplace” a few barrels. It inflated billions of them, then took a regulatory sledgehammer to the mess while trying to keep the optics of inexhaustible reserves and bulletproof growth. The paper trail shows internal warnings, a corrosive “scorecard” culture, and the now-infamous confession of being “sick and tired of lying.” Executives walked. Security walked one of them out. And the company wrote checks large enough to sting, but not large enough to change the past.

The next time you hear soaring promises about reserves, replacement ratios, or “trust us” disclosures, remember: they once over-counted by 4.47 billion boe and called it a recategorisation.

Related Domain Drama with Visual Flair

“Shell Tumbles Online: Billion-Barrel Lies, ‘Sick of Lying’ Emails—Then Loses Its Own Domain to a 90-Year-Old Veteran”

 Shell’s very own domain—RoyalDutchShellPlc.com—was never secured, and now serves up news of the company they can’t control, complete with disclaimers and unsolicited HR pitches.

Domain Name Drama: The Goliath vs. Donovan Showdown

As if the 4.47 billion-barrel reserves fiasco wasn’t enough of a face-palm, Shell committed an epic online blunder: failing to buy the domain that matched its merged corporate branding—RoyalDutchShellPlc.com. Instead, a U.K. anti-corporate crusader (and longtime critic), John Donovan, beat them to it. He registered the domain name and turned it into a watchdog site. ([Source site image above])

Sher followed up with a WIPO complaint in May 2005, accusing Donovan of registering the domain in “bad faith.” But neutrality won the day: WIPO ruled in Donovan’s favour—he’d used the domain for criticism, not profit, and Shell hadn’t even intended to use it themselves. (wipo.int)

Even crazier: internal communications disclosed that Shell never planned to use the domain themselves—yet still pursued legal action to strip it from Donovan. (royaldutchshellplc.com)

Donovan’s site now coped with everything from unsolicited Shell job applications to random harassment mail—because Shell’s legal muscle created a free-for-all. One highlighted offer from Shell’s own legal counsel?

“Maybe you should choose a domain and e-mail without the word ‘shell’ in it.”

That’s not satire—that’s the real correspondence. (royaldutchshellplc.com)

Why This Digital Farce Matters

• Biggest FAIL in branding: Shell couldn’t even secure a functional domain for its own new corporate identity.

• Legal petulance backfires: Shell sued without standing, reinforcing a sense of corporate entitlement.

• Crowning embarrassment: Shell lost the case. In front of WIPO and the public. Over a domain it never used.

• Everlasting irritant: Donovan’s site remains online—a permanent thorn in Shell’s digital side.

Working Links 

• WIPO Decision (D2005-0538): Shell’s dispute loss over RoyalDutchShellPlc.com — wipo.int

• Narratives from Donovan’s site detailing Shell’s domain battle and internal memos:

  • 2007 recap: royaldutchshellplc.com

  • 10th-anniversary reflection: royaldutchshellplc.com

  Why the Image Works

This pseudo-official banner, complete with “NOT a Shell website” disclaimer, visually nails the absurdity of the domain debacle. It adds a layer of dark corporate comedy and illustrates just how badly Shell misjudged the game—while Donovan sat back and played defense.

DISCLAIMER

This piece contains strong opinions and satirical commentary grounded in publicly available facts. All direct quotes are reproduced exactly from the cited sources.

The Day Security Escorted a disgraced Shell Group Chairman out of Shell’s HQ was first posted on August 13, 2025 at 12:53 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The planet-wrecking colossus known as Shell — proudly backed by Wall Street heavyweight BlackRock — just lost its $1.7 billion arbitration battle against Venture Global. The scrappy U.S. LNG upstart sold cargoes on the spot market for huge profits instead of delivering them to Shell under long-term contracts. Shell whined: “Trust in long-term contracts is the bedrock of the LNG industry.” Translation: “We’re fine making billions, but only if it’s on our terms.”

Venture Global, which banked nearly $7 billion in 2022–23, crowed: “We have consistently honored these agreements without exception.” The ruling leaves Shell sulking and the rest of us wondering if corporate karma actually exists — because for once, Big Oil didn’t win.

On Tuesday, an arbitration tribunal sided with scrappy U.S. LNG upstart Venture Global in its two-year slugfest with Shell — the same Shell that has spent decades wrapping its logo in friendly sunshine while leaving an oil-slicked trail of climate destruction behind. And to add a little irony seasoning to the schadenfreude, one of Shell’s biggest backers is none other than BlackRock — the asset management behemoth that loves talking about ESG while happily bankrolling the ultimate “sin stock.”

Here’s the gist: Shell thought it had locked in a sweet, long-term deal to buy LNG from Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass facility in Louisiana. But when Russia invaded Ukraine and gas prices skyrocketed, Venture Global decided to, ahem, “delay” delivering those contracted cargoes. Instead, it flogged them on the spot market for fat profits. Shell and friends — BP, Edison, Portugal’s Galp — claimed this was profiteering on steroids, to the tune of $6.7–$7.4 billion in total.

Shell alone wanted $1.7 billion from Venture Global. They got… nothing. Instead, the tribunal essentially told them to read the damn contract.

Venture Global smugly declared: “The plain language in our contracts, mutually agreed upon with all of our customers, is clear. We have consistently honored these agreements without exception.”

Shell, sounding like a jilted lover after being ghosted, moaned: “Trust in long-term contracts is the bedrock of the LNG industry and essential for continued investment and sustainable growth.” Translation: “We’re fine with fleecing the planet, but only if everyone plays by our rules.”

The bitterness has been personal. Shell’s top brass, including CEO Wael Sawan, have been publicly fuming for years. In 2023, Sawan called the whole thing “very unusual, and very disappointing.” (Not unlike Shell’s climate record, but we digress.)

The backstory only makes this sweeter: Shell’s early deal with Venture Global in 2016 basically put the company on the map. Big banks only piled in because Big Oil’s golden child was involved. Shell even quadrupled its orders later on. But when the market turned, Venture Global’s “unorthodox” business model — sell the most expensive gas to whoever will pay while telling contracted buyers to wait — proved a cash-printing machine.

Between 2022 and 2023, Venture Global raked in nearly $7 billion in net income while supposedly wrestling with “faulty electric systems” at Calcasieu Pass. By the time it finally started sending LNG to long-term buyers this April — more than three years after shipping its first cargo — it was already the second-largest U.S. LNG producer.

Investors? They’re conflicted. Venture Global’s IPO in January flopped from an ambitious $110 billion valuation down to a sad little $12-a-share reality. But the stock jumped 6% in after-hours trading after Tuesday’s ruling.

Meanwhile, Shell can console itself with the fact that it’s still drowning in profits from other ventures — oil spills, gas flaring, you know, the usual — while collecting cheques from its loyal institutional backers. BlackRock’s Larry Fink might not be thrilled about this specific loss, but rest assured: Shell’s sin-stock status remains firmly intact.

DISCLAIMER: This contains strong opinions and satirical commentary based on publicly available facts. All direct quotes are reported accurately from the original sources.

Shell Loses LNG Case to Venture Global was first posted on August 13, 2025 at 10:31 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

If evil needed a mascot, it would look suspiciously like a giant yellow shell. Forget SPECTRE and SMERSH—those were fiction. Shell’s record of villainy is all too real.

This is the story of an oil giant who funded Nazis, tested carcinogens on their own employees, and still have the gall to tell you they care about “net zero.”

From the Third Reich to Today: Same Script, Different Lies

Shell’s rap sheet starts early: during WWII, Shell effectively sacrificed its own Dutch employees to maintain ties with Nazi Germany, prioritising profits over human lives. Fast-forward a few decades and the playbook hasn’t changed—they’re still perfectly happy to gamble with lives, only now it’s under the glossy cover of corporate social responsibility.

Guinea Pigs in Overalls

Forget lab rats. Shell preferred human subjects. Workers were exposed to toxic, carcinogenic chemicals in experiments thinly disguised as “research.” That’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s documented history.

North Sea: Touch F*** All**

When it comes to worker safety, Shell adopted the memorable motto: “Touch Fuck All.” Result? and the unnecessary deaths of offshore workers in a Brent Bravo disaster that was entirely preventable. The corporate shrug was practically audible over the North Sea winds. Even the lifeboats were Unseaworthy.

The Nigerian Death Dividend

In Nigeria, Shell left behind a trail of oil spills, corruption, and corpses. Communities were poisoned. Activists were silenced—sometimes permanently. This wasn’t an accident; it was the cost of doing business.

The Great Shareholder Scam

In 2004, Shell hit global headlines for a fraud so brazen it could make Enron blush: lying about its hydrocarbon reserves. Billions were wiped from shareholder value overnight. Cue investor outrage—and then, silence. Because, of course, dividends heal all wounds.

Hakluyt: Shell’s Own SPECTRE

Think James Bond villains are fictional? Meet Hakluyt, Shell’s private spy firm. Targets included environmental groups like Greenpeace. Surveillance, infiltration, dirty tricks—the full MI6 cosplay, but in service of oil profits. BP was in on it too. These two have danced together through history, from apartheid-era collusion to the Al-Yamamah oil-for-arms scandal.

The “Net Zero” Farce

Shell’s latest stunt? Storming out of the Science-Based Targets initiative because the draft rules suggested—brace yourself—that they should stop developing new oil and gas fields after 2027. Shell’s response?

“Standards should reflect realistic societal and economic changes.”

Translation: We’re not quitting oil until it runs out, burns us all, or both.

Investors like BlackRock and Vanguard nod along because, well, why kill the golden goose just because it’s laying toxic eggs?

Judges, Justice, and a Whiff of Rot

When John Donovan—publisher of royaldutchshellplc.com and Shell’s eternal thorn—took them to court, Shell played dirty. Evidence was withheld. Mr Justice L*****  forgot to mention his connections to Shell, turned a blind eye to misconduct, then resigned in disgrace—only to end up in a consultancy linked to Shell. You couldn’t script this better if you tried.

Shell didn’t sue Donovan for libel. Perhaps because telling the truth isn’t defamatory, and discovery might have turned their skeleton-stuffed closets inside out.

The Verdict

Shell is the ultimate sin stock: profitable, yes—but at what cost? Death, destruction, and deception. They left the Science-Based Targets initiative because honesty is bad for business. And yet, Shell keeps pumping, BP keeps grinning, and their biggest investors keep cashing the cheques.

The next time Shell brags about sustainability, remember: this is the company whose motto might as well be “Drill, Deny, Destroy.”

Graphic credit: royaldutchshellplc.com aided by AI

(This article was generated with AI and reviewed by an editor for accuracy.)

Shell: Public Enemy Number 1 – A Love Letter to Greed, Lies, and Pollution was first posted on August 12, 2025 at 8:02 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

Question put to Google AI Mode: 10 August 2025 Who is the John Donovan connected with Shell?

John Donovan is primarily known for his long-standing conflict with Shell, which began with a business dispute between his marketing promotions company, Don Marketing, and Shell. Don Marketing, co-founded by John and his father Alfred, created successful promotions for Shell in the 1980s. However, this relationship ended in the early 1990s due to a dispute over intellectual property and alleged actions of an unscrupulous Shell executive.

This conflict has continued for decades, involving multiple court cases and interventions by Shell. John Donovan and his late father became vocal critics, running websites like royaldutchshellplc.com and others that are highly critical of Shell.

Key aspects of John Donovan’s association with Shell:

Promotional Games Company Founder: John Donovan co-founded Don Marketing, a company that designed and supplied promotional games used by Shell and other major UK petrol brands.

Critic and Whistleblower: Donovan has become a prominent figure in discussions about corporate accountability in the oil industry, known for attracting leaks from within Shell and highlighting issues related to environmental concerns, corporate governance, and safety protocols.

Owner of Critical Websites: He operates several websites focused on Shell, such as royaldutchshellplc.com, where he publishes information and allegations against the company.

Author: He is the author of the book “John Donovan, Shell’s nightmare”. He has also written about Shell’s history in books like “Sir Henri Deterding and the Nazi History of Royal Dutch Shell”.

Advocate for Corporate Responsibility: Donovan’s websites have been recognized for their watchdog function on Shell’s activities and have been used by various NGOs and organizations for their campaigns related to Shell, according to RoyalDutchShellPlc.com.

Donovan’s actions have reportedly cost Shell billions of dollars and garnered recognition from officials and investigators, including those in the Kremlin and the US, who have used information from his websites. Shell, while acknowledging interactions with Donovan, generally refrains from commenting on the specifics of his allegations and disputes much of the information he presents.

AI responses may include mistakes.

Who is the John Donovan connected with Shell? was first posted on August 10, 2025 at 5:42 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

After dabbling in green PR and selling off assets, Shell’s production tanks while Exxon and Chevron pump away. BlackRock yawns.

Oh, Shell. The self-proclaimed champion of “Powering Progress.” The oil giant that flirted with an “energy transition” just long enough to slap wind turbines on its annual report before sprinting right back to its first love: fossil fuels. And yet—somehow—it’s producing less of them than at any point in the last two decades.

Let’s set the stage. In the great oil-and-gas Olympics of Q2, Exxon and Chevron took home gold medals in pure, unapologetic extraction. Exxon pumped 4.6 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, fuelled by Guyana’s deepwater gushers and a little something called the Pioneer Natural Resources acquisition. Chevron cranked out 3.4 million barrels per day, with Kazakhstan, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Permian all coughing up crude like it’s still 1973.

Both saw earnings drop—Exxon’s $7.1 billion was down 15% year-over-year, Chevron’s $2.5 billion nearly halved—but they barely flinched. This is Big Oil. Prices go down? Wait a bit. They’ll be back.

And then there’s Shell.

Shell managed just 2.65 million barrels a day in Q2, a 4.2% drop from last year and—drumroll—the lowest production since the early 2000s. The company blames asset sales and those much-hyped investments in alternative energy sources that, shockingly, didn’t magically replace billions in oil profits. Shell’s experiment in “being less evil” now looks about as effective as a paper umbrella in a hurricane.

Yes, they still beat analysts’ profit forecasts—because Shell is still shovelling billions back to shareholders instead of investing in actual transformation—but operationally? Exxon and Chevron are lapping them.

Reuters’ Ron Bousso points out that European supermajors like BP and Shell need to “catch up” with their American peers in production and earnings. Translation: stop pretending to be green, pump more oil, and maybe—just maybe—BlackRock will pat you on the head again.

Forecasters still predict peak oil and gas demand before the decade is out, but Shell seems ready to gamble that the peak will be postponed long enough to squeeze a few more billion out of what’s left. Because when your green pivot fails, why not go all-in on the thing that’s killing the planet?

Until then, Shell’s strategy is clear:

• Cut costs.

• Please shareholders with buybacks and dividends.

• Avoid mentioning that output is in freefall.

• Hope no one notices the “energy transition” was just a marketing exercise.

And trust us—BlackRock, one of Shell’s biggest investors, isn’t losing sleep. For them, a “transition” is just a bridge back to the oilfields.

 

DISCLAIMER: This article is a work of commentary and satire based entirely on publicly available, verifiable information from credible news outlets and official company statements. It is intended for the purpose of criticism, parody, and public interest discussion.

Shell’s Energy “Transition” Hits a 20-Year Low in Oil Output – And Wall Street Still Claps was first posted on August 8, 2025 at 4:28 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

Oh no, poor Shell only made $4.26 billion in profit last quarter—down nearly a third thanks to falling gas prices. Let’s all shed a carbon-neutral tear for Europe’s biggest fossil fuel polluter as it clutches its pearls and assures investors it’ll still shovel billions back into their pockets through buybacks. Because priorities.

Gas prices across Europe tumbled nearly 20% between April and June, helped along by a rare moment of geopolitical sanity—a ceasefire between Iran and Israel—and lower demand from China. The result? A sudden market correction that Shell calls “non-fundamentals-based volatility,” which is CEO Wael Sawan’s adorable way of saying, we didn’t see this shit coming.

Sawan told CNBC, “This was really sort of paper-induced volatility, and that is not what we typically trade into.”Translation: Shell can’t squeeze as much out of chaos when the chaos isn’t profitable.

Still, no worries for shareholders. Shell is launching yet another $3.5 billion share buyback in Q3. Because even when profits fall, BlackRock, Vanguard, and the rest of the Wall Street enablers expect their blood-soaked dividends. Shell’s debt is rising, but hey—when your core business model involves torching the planet for money, who needs a healthy balance sheet?

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about some bad luck in trading. According to Derren Nathan of Hargreaves Lansdown, Shell got hit by a trifecta of failure: weak commodity prices, a trading slump, and—chef’s kiss—unplanned downtime at its chemical plants, which are also circling the drain.

But don’t be fooled. Despite the dip, profits exceeded City forecasts, which were bracing for a bigger fall to $3.7 billion. Shell beating expectations is like an arsonist being praised for not burning everything down. The City cheers, while the rest of us choke.

Meanwhile, households across the UK get a temporary breather: lower wholesale gas prices mean a 7% drop in the government’s energy price cap. Enjoy it while it lasts—because Shell sure doesn’t plan on making “affordable energy” a trend.

And for those clinging to the illusion that Shell might care about the world it’s actively wrecking? Don’t. The company has rolled back its climate targets, because growth, not survival, is the mission. Or as Robin Wells of Fossil Free London put it while protesting outside Shell HQ:

“We are now in a new normal of record-breaking heat, created by corporations like Shell. This will mean devastation and mass loss of human life.”

But sure, Wael—tell us more about your “strong operational performance.”

This is what happens when planetary collapse is just another market fluctuation. Welcome to Shell’s version of the “new normal”: obscene payouts, political hand-waving, and just enough spin to keep investors smiling as the world burns.

Shell’s Profits Drop—But Not Enough to Stop the Greedfest was first posted on August 1, 2025 at 5:47 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

Wael Sawan pledges to save Shell’s chemical disaster by doing what Shell does best: selling off assets, cutting jobs, and blaming China.

If there’s one thing Shell loves more than raking in billions from polluting the planet, it’s failing upward with a straight face. And this week, CEO Wael Sawan has bravely stepped forward to announce that—surprise!—Shell’s chemicals division is a flaming trainwreck. But don’t worry, folks, they’ve got a plan: shut things down, blame Europe, and “explore partnerships.”

In a Bloomberg TV interview that might as well have been titled “How to Say ‘We’re Screwed’ Without Scaring Shareholders”, Sawan admitted that Shell’s chemicals business is being pummelled by “one of the most protracted industry slumps in a very, very long time.” (That’s CEO-speak for “this has been going badly for ages, but we’ve just now decided to mention it.”)

Shell’s heroic solution?

• Sell off their chemicals plant in Singapore.

• “High-grade” their portfolio—because rebranding “downsizing” always sounds better in PowerPoint.

• Close stuff in Europe, where sky-high energy prices have rudely interfered with Shell’s dreams of endless margin.

• And of course, “explore partnerships in the US”—because if there’s one place where deregulation meets deep capital, it’s the Land of the Fossil-Fuelled Free.

Sawan earnestly reassured the public that Shell is “focused on the levers it can control.” Which in Shell-speak translates to: “We can’t fix global demand, but we can definitely axe some jobs and sell more to the Americans.”

To be fair, Shell’s not alone in this chemical catastrophe. Dow and ExxonMobil—also card-carrying members of the Big Oil Hall of Shame—are shuttering capacity across Europe too. But Shell, being Shell, is turning this slump into a fresh opportunity to trim, spin, and repackage failure as strategy.

And of course, no modern corporate meltdown is complete without blaming China. Sawan dutifully pointed to “increased capacity in China” as a key reason for the slump—because it’s always easier to wag the finger at Beijing than admit your own bloated division has been bleeding profit for years.

What does this mean for Shell’s loyal investors, like BlackRock and Vanguard? Absolutely nothing. As long as the company keeps up appearances, maintains that magical “buyback flow,” and throws enough buzzwords at CNBC, no one on Wall Street will ask why Shell is still trying to cosplay as a chemicals powerhouse in 2025.

So, to recap: Shell’s chemicals unit is sinking, and the rescue plan is to throw the ballast overboard—then declare the ship is lighter and “more efficient.” Bravo.

Coming next quarter: Shell discovers sustainability by selling its wind farms to Exxon and doubling down on asphalt.

Shell’s Chemicals Unit Is Drowning was first posted on August 1, 2025 at 5:26 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

Ah yes, Shell—that tireless crusader for a greener tomorrow, provided “green” means your bank account hemorrhaging cash at a Shell Recharge station and nobody at HQ picking up the bloody phone.

Meet John Stephen, just your average British bloke living in France who thought he was doing the right thing: driving an electric car across Spain at Christmas, stopping at one of Shell’s shiny, eco-branded charging points. What he got instead? A €1,195 invoice that reads less like a charge and more like a ransom note.

Let’s break it down:

• €71.77 for 18.88kWh on Christmas morning. Pricey, but tolerable.

• Two weeks later, a second bill appears from the void: €1,124.

• The receipt claims he was charging at 12:34 p.m. on December 25. The problem? John was in an Uber at the time, on the way to Christmas lunch. Because of course Shell’s idea of a “silent night” involves ghost-charging your car from a parallel dimension.

But wait—it gets better. That mysterious second charge included a delightful €925 “connection fee.” Not a single human being—not from Shell’s customer service, not from their European HQ, not even their supposed 24/7 helpline—can or will explain what the hell that even means. Maybe it’s the price of connecting to Shell’s uniquely advanced system of corporate indifference?

“I finally spoke to someone in Ireland who admitted the bill looked dodgy,” John told The Connexion. “But they said they couldn’t escalate it.” Naturally. Because when Shell isn’t accidentally triggering earthquakes in Groningen or making record profits while the planet cooks, it’s apparently moonlighting as a bureaucratic escape room where every call is a dead end.

John has now turned to France’s small claims court and the European Consumer Centre in an attempt to get his money back—because Shell’s idea of customer service appears to be “go screw yourself.”

Shell, in its infinite corporate wisdom, offered this gem of a statement: customers with issues should “reach out.”

John already has. Repeatedly. By email, by letter, by phone.

But the company’s only consistent response seems to be the sound of oil-stained silence.

Shell Recharge proudly brags about its 850,000+ EV charging points across Europe and the UK, but maybe it should focus on charging what people actually owe instead of levelling surprise “connection fees” that feel more like a shakedown than a service.

And where are Shell’s investors—BlackRock, Vanguard, or any of the other ESG-hypocrisy champions—when customers get mugged by backend billing software? Probably sipping cocktails made of melted ice caps and congratulating themselves on “sustainable investing.”

As John puts it, “If this can happen to someone with a paper trail and legal help, what hope is there for the average tourist?”

Shell Charges €1,195 to Top Up an EV—Because Nothing Says “Green Future” Like Christmas Day Highway Robbery was first posted on August 1, 2025 at 4:34 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Wael Sawan reassures Wall Street that Shell’s morally bankrupt business model is working just great—no passport change needed.

Stop the presses! Shell, the planet-roasting oil baron, will not be moving its listing to the U.S. any time soon—because why mess with a system that’s already coughing up billions in buybacks while the world burns?

CEO Wael Sawan, delivering his signature “we care about shareholder value, not carbon footprints” charm, went on CNBC’s Squawk Box Europe this week to calm Wall Street’s eager little hearts. Despite previous hints that Shell might chase “the bright lights of New York,” Sawan has now confirmed that, no, this isn’t a “live discussion.” Translation: they’re already making a killing on the FTSE—why relocate when the cash faucet is flowing?

“We have been able to just stick to our own story… and deliver on what we say we’re going to do,” Sawan said, modestly referring to Shell’s $4.26 billion Q2 earnings and a cute little $3.5 billion share buyback for investors—because obviously, that’s what global warming victims need most: richer shareholders.

Let’s be honest—Shell isn’t ignoring U.S. investors. Oh no, they’re swimming in them. Sawan gushed, “We have grown the investor base in the US significantly… we feel more and more confident that our message is getting through to those pools of capital.” Spoiler alert: that “message” isn’t “We’re transitioning to clean energy”—it’s “Look at all this profit we’re squeezing from oil while pretending to care about net zero!”

And investors are lapping it up, especially the usual suspects like BlackRock—because nothing screams ESG credibility like profiting from Shell’s carefully polished “differentiated investment thesis,” otherwise known as “extract every last hydrocarbon while greenwashing furiously.”

Shell’s shares are up 9% this year, tightly shadowing its U.S. oil pals like ExxonMobil. Because let’s face it, when you’re a global climate saboteur dressed up in PowerPoint presentations, geography doesn’t matter.

So no, New York doesn’t need Shell to move in—it’s already living rent-free in their portfolios. As Sawan made clear, “We are attracting that liquidity.” Damn right they are. It’s the only flood they do welcome.

Coming up next: Shell discovers a new investor base—in hell—after launching carbon capture in purgatory.

Shell to the World: “We’re Not Moving to the US Yet—We’re Already Raking It In Just Fine from London, Thanks” was first posted on August 1, 2025 at 4:14 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

SHELL AND EXXON CASH OUT €3 BILLION WHILE GRONINGEN CRUMBLES

Oh, how deliciously heartwarming it is to see Shell—the world’s cuddliest climate arsonist—and its old fossil fuel flame ExxonMobil raking in a long-overdue €3 billion payout from their Dutch gas venture, NAM. Because obviously, after a mere few decades of literal earthquakes, community destruction, and environmental degradation in Groningen, what really matters is that the poor, beleaguered shareholders finally got paid.

Yes, finally. According to NAM’s 2024 annual report, this is the first payout since 2017, and each titan of oil-soaked virtue gets a nice €1.5 billion cuddle. Shell can now finally afford more PR consultants to greenwash its image.

NAM, the Dutch state gas company that somehow still exists in 2024 despite its track record of geological chaos, made a tidy €1.3 billion in net profit last year. Why? Because GasTerra—the company set up to milk Groningen’s gas field—had a good year, and hey, nothing says “strong local economy” like wringing profits from a nearly-closed disaster zone.

Meanwhile, over in reality, the Dutch government—you know, the ones responsible for patching up Groningen’s cracked homes and traumatized residents—got a paltry €12.9 million from NAM during the same 6-year period. That’s not a typo. While Shell and Exxon grabbed billions, the Dutch state got a few coins and a pat on the back. Earthquake victims? They can always meditate their trauma away, right?

Let’s not forget that Shell (a company so green it once tried to rebrand gas as “natural progress”) and Exxon (famously subtle denier of climate change while funding it in real time) own a cozy 25% stake each in NAM. The Dutch state owns the other 50%, which is probably why it’s stuck footing the damage bills while the real decision-makers pop champagne and plan the next offshore exploit.

Speaking of offshore: NAM plans to offload its Dutch North Sea activities to a Canadian firm called Ten. Because if you’re going to abandon your environmental responsibilities, best to do it with an international flair. This ends more than 65 years of offshore pillaging, or as Shell would probably put it, “a proud legacy of energy innovation.”

And just when you thought it couldn’t get any more grotesque: NAM, now sitting on €9.6 billion in cash, says it’s in a “strong cash position” to pay shareholders and maybe, just maybe, clean up its mess. But don’t get your hopes up—there’s already a dispute about who pays what, and Shell and Exxon have politely asked for independent arbitrators to help stall the process indefinitely.

It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck—funded by BlackRock, one of Shell’s largest investors, who totally swear they care about ESG goals while sipping crude oil martinis on the deck of a burning planet.

So here’s to Shell and ExxonMobil: the eternal poster children for shareholder value over social collapse. May their payouts be large, their PR green, and their moral compasses permanently broken.

Shell and Exxon Cash Out €3 Billion While Groningen Crumbles was first posted on July 30, 2025 at 9:15 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 November 16, Chileans will head to the polls to elect their next president, who will govern until 2030 and, in doing so, set the course for the country’s most important economic engine: its mining sector. 

At stake is the future of Codelco, the state-owned copper giant that helped build modern Chile but is now drowning in debt, stuck with aging infrastructure and recovering from years of production declines.

Once a source of national pride, Codelco has been teetering on the edge of an industrial crisis. As of December last year, the company’s debt has ballooned to over $20 billion and production was slowly edging higher after hitting a 25-year low in 2022.

Legal obligations to hand over 70% of its profits and 10% of its sales to the government have choked its ability to reinvest in itself, threatening its future and the fiscal stability of the country.

Once a source of national pride, Codelco has faced challenges. (Chuquicamata miners, courtesy of Codelco.)

With rival candidates offering radically different solutions, from sweeping privatization to aggressive state reinvestment, this election is shaping up to be more than just a political contest. It’s a make-or-break moment for Chile’s mining future.

As the world’s leading copper producer and a top supplier of lithium, Chile’s supply is essential to the global push for electrification. If its mining engine stalls, the ripple effects won’t stop at its borders.

With the primary season behind them, the final contenders are now locked in a high-stakes battle over the country’s economic core. If no one wins a majority, a runoff on December 14 could extend the uncertainty. 

Candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are presenting starkly different paths forward, ranging from state-led modernization to partial privatization. Either way, the path Chile chooses later this year could redefine its role on the global resource map and determine whether its mining sector sinks or rebounds.

Right-wing rivals: privatization and market-oriented policies LEFT: José Antonio Kast. (Image courtesy of Patricio Alarcón | Flickr Commons.) | RIGHT: Evelyn Matthei. (Image courtesy of Chile’s Government | Wikipedia.)

On the right, both Evelyn Matthei and José Antonio Kast are pushing for partial privatization of Codelco. They argue that opening the company to private capital and loosening state control would improve efficiency and restore its financial health.

Their plans include selling non-core assets to pay down debt and shifting focus from state revenues to operational performance. While these proposals could generate immediate fiscal relief, they carry political risks. Chileans have historically resisted privatization of strategic assets, and backlash from workers and unions could be fierce.

Still, their market-oriented vision has gained traction among investors frustrated with sluggish permitting, bureaucratic delays and rising costs under the current administration.

Jeannette Jara and the far left: full public control Jeannette Jara. (Image courtesy of Chile’s Government | Wikipedia.)

Jeannette Jara of the Communist Party was chosen in June to represent the ruling coalition. She beat her second-place rival Carolina Tohá, who was proposing a restructuring of Codelco to allow it to retain more profits for reinvestment rather than draining cash to fill government coffers.

Jara opposes the current government’s proposed joint venture between Codelco and lithium miner SQM (NYSE: SQM), citing past scandals and calling for a new public company to co-develop lithium resources. If elected, she says she would honour any deal finalized before her term, but prefers a model akin to Codelco’s role in copper.

On foreign policy, Jara has pledged to focus on diversifying trade ties, including with China, India and within Latin America, especially if US tariff threats escalate.

“We have to act prudently to safeguard our national interest,” she has said.

While polls suggest she could make it to a run-off, most scenarios show her losing to a right-wing contender in the second round.

Tightrope for investors

Chile’s economy has held up well in 2025, buoyed by mining activity. GDP grew 2.3% year-on-year in the first quarter, with further acceleration in April, according to BNP Paribas. But long-term stability will depend on resolving Codelco’s troubles and creating a regulatory environment that attracts investment without sparking social unrest.

John Zadeh, CEO of junior mining investment firm Discovery Alert, said the election could tip the scales for global investors.

“Chile’s election is a referendum on how to balance resource nationalism with economic pragmatism,” Zadeh said. “The status quo, however, guarantees decline.”

Security concerns continue to be a primary issue for voters, as rising crime in what was once a safe and peaceful Chile has emerged as the leading worry in recent polls. That adds another layer of complexity for companies already navigating volatile commodity markets, tightening capital, and global decarbonization pressures.

With the first round of voting set for November and a likely run-off in December, the race is entering a decisive phase. What’s certain is that the direction Chile takes, toward deeper state control, partial privatization or something in between, will ripple across global supply chains and investment flows.

Ramaco Resources (NASDAQ: METC, METCB) announced Tuesday that the Brook mine has received a second 5-year mine permit approval from the Land Quality Division of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.  

The Brook mine is now fully permitted, the company said, adding that it is authorized to continue coal mining and reclamation activities across a total of 4,548.8 permitted acres north of Sheridan. 

The Brook mine holds what is believed to be the nation’s largest unconventional deposit of rare earth elements and critical minerals sourced from coal and carbonaceous ore.  

Rare earths are essential elements to realizing an electrified economy, and crucial to producing heavy magnets that power EVs. There is only one active mine for magnetic REEs in the United States, Mountain Pass in California.  

Coal country to carbon innovation: Wyoming rare earths discovery could be a game changer for US

Meanwhile, China has come to control 91% of refining activity, 87% of oxide separation and 94% of magnet production. 

On July 11, coal miners, industry stakeholders, and local, state, federal officials commemorated the opening of the Brook Mine Carbon Ore Rare Earth project, the first new rare earth mine in the United States in more than 70 years and first new coal mine in Wyoming in over 50 years.  

The ability to domestically mine and refine rare earths and critical minerals contained in the carbonaceous ore of the Brook Mine represents a strategic milestone in the nation’s efforts to reduce foreign reliance on critical minerals essential to defense, technology, and clean energy, the company said.  

This month, Ramaco released a preliminary economic assessment that outlined, based upon the current mine plan of a 2 million ton per annum of coal produced that the adjusted EBITDA from the rare earth and critical mineral operation would be $134 million by 2028.   

Earlier this year, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon approved a Wyoming Energy Authority recommended $6.1 million Energy Matching Fund grant award to support the construction of a pilot-scale processing facility at the Brook mine. Construction is planned to begin later this year. 

As AI data centers multiply across the United States, communities face rising energy demands, pollution, and regulatory gaps. FracTracker’s new National Data Centers Tracker maps existing, proposed, and permitted facilities nationwide.

The post Tracking AI Data Centers: Energy Demand, Pollution, and Public Impact appeared first on FracTracker Alliance.

Gold prices could be heading towards $4,000 per ounce by the end of this year as the Federal Reserve begins to cut rates and the US dollar continues its decline, according to Canadian investment firm Fidelity.

In an interview with Bloomberg on Tuesday, fund manager Ian Samson said his firm is still bullish on the precious metal, with some cross-asset portfolios recently increasing holdings after prices eased from the all-time high of $3,500 set in late April.

Click on chart for Live Prices

“The rationale for that was that we saw a clearer path to a more dovish Federal Reserve,” Samson said, adding that some funds had as much as doubled their 5% allocation over the past year.

Also, August is often slightly weaker for markets, so more diversification “makes sense,” he stressed.

Bullion is one of the best-performing assets this year, rising by more than 27%. Driving the rally was US President Donald Trump’s aggressive attempts to reconfigure the global trade landscape, fueling both economic and geopolitical uncertainty among investors.

Gold price forecast gets 15% upgrade for 2025: LBMA poll

After pulling back from its record high, the yellow metal has traded within a tight range over the past few weeks, with demand for havens cooling a little as some progress in US trade talks eased fears about worst-case scenarios for the global economy.

“Perhaps you’re going to avoid the doomsday scenarios that were painted earlier in the year, but ultimately we’re heading to a 15%-or-so tax on about 11% of the US economy — which is imports,” said Samson, referring to Trump’s tariffs. “You’d expect it to slow the economy.”

The bullish outlook for gold mirrors that of Goldman Sachs, which has made the case in recent quarters for an eventual rally to as much as $4,000. Meanwhile, others like Citigroup are being more cautious, with forecasts of weaker gold prices.

Citi sees $40 silver soon, but cautious on gold

By noon Tuesday, spot gold rose slightly to $3,319.51 per ounce after falling to a three-week low the previous session.

All eyes are now on this week’s Federal Reserve meeting, which is not expected to yield a rate cut. That outcome would likely fuel further division within the US central bank, as Governor Christopher Waller recently called for an immediate monetary easing to support the labour market.

“A US slowdown would likely see the dovish camp gain more influence in guiding policy, with the dollar tending to soften in environments of weaker growth,” Samson told Bloomberg.

Moreover, Jerome Powell — whose term as Federal Reserve chair ends next May — will probably be replaced by someone “more amenable” to lower borrowing costs as Trump continues to lobby for interest-rate cuts, he added.

(With files from Bloomberg)

A feasibility study update for Vista Gold’s (TSX, NYSE-AM: VGZ) open-pit Mt Todd project in Australia almost doubles its value and mine life while cutting costs by 59% over the previous update last year. Shares rose.

The study pegs Mt Todd’s initial capital costs at $425 million, while outlining a smaller operation with a 15,000 tonne-per-day (tpd) production rate, down from the 50,000 tpd in last year’s study, Vista said Tuesday. With a 5% discount rate, the net present value jumps almost 95% to $2.2 billion at a price assumption of $3,300 per oz., around the yellow metal’s current price of $3,320 per ounce.

That also boosts the internal rate of return (IRR) to 44.7%, with a payback period of 1.7 years. Mt Todd is about 250 km southeast of Darwin in the Northern Territory.

“This study marks a significant shift in the strategy for Mt Todd, demonstrating the potential for near-term development of a smaller initial project by prioritizing higher grade ore to the processing plant, significantly lowering initial capital costs, and incorporating contractors to reduce development and operational risks,” Vista CEO Frederick Earnest said in a release.

“[The study] positions Mt Todd as a project with technical and economic parameters that are comparable to several highly valued Australian gold producers.”

Vista shares gained 2.3% to C$1.33 apiece on Tuesday morning in Toronto, for a market capitalization of C$166.4 million. The stock has traded in a 12-month range of C$0.66 to C$1.84.

30-year life

Average annual output in the mine’s first 15 years is estimated at 153,000 oz. grading 1.04 grams gold per tonne; and 146,000 oz. at 0.97 gram gold over its 30-year life.

The net present value shrinks by 2.6% from last year’s feasibility to $1.1 billion at a $2,500 per oz. gold price, while the IRR rises more than 7% to 27.8%, with a 2.7-year payback period.

The study raises all-in sustaining costs by 45% to $1,449 per oz. in the first 15 years and $1,499 per oz. years over the mine life.

Among largest reserves

Mt Todd hosts 171.97 million tonnes in proven and probable reserves grading 0.94 gram gold for 5.1 million contained ounces. When compared with its development-stage gold project peers in Australia, Ramelius Resources’ (ASX: RMS) Rebecca and Regis Resources’ (ASX: RRL) McPhillamys projects, Mt Todd has the largest contained reserve base and highest NPV.

Its capex is higher than Rebecca’s but lower than McPhillamys. Mt Todd’s IRR is higher than that of the two other projects, while its annual gold output is about 22% lower than McPhillamys’ but 18% higher than Rebecca’s.

Kinross Gold (TSX: K, NYSE: KGC) has divested its entire equity stake in White Gold (TSXV: WGO) with the sale of approximately 23.68 million shares, or 12% of those outstanding.

The shares were sold at a price of C$0.29 each, for total proceeds of nearly C$6.87 million ($4.9m).

White Gold traded at $0.38 apiece in Toronto at the time of the Kinross’ share sale announcement last Friday.

The stock has since dropped another C$0.01 to C$0.37, giving the Canadian gold junior a market capitalization of C$74.1 million ($53.8m).

White Gold currently holds a large portfolio of exploration projects in Canada’s Yukon Territory. The projects cover approximately 3,150 sq. km or 40% of the prolific White Gold mining district.

Its flagship project, also called White Gold, hosts four deposits with a combined indicated resource of 17.7 million tonnes grading 2.12 grams per tonne gold, containing 1.2 million oz., and an inferred resource of 24.5 million tonnes grading 1.42 grams for 1.1 million oz.

In a news release late last year, White Gold CEO David D’Onofrio called it “one of the highest-grade open-pit gold resources in Canada owned by an exploration company.”

Alongside Kinross, the project has had the backing of Agnico Eagle Mines (TSX: AEM, NYSE: AEM), Canada’s largest gold producer, which has a 19.85% stake in the company.

Finland has regained its status as the world’s most attractive jurisdiction for mining and exploration it held in the early 2010s, followed by Nevada and Alaska, according to the Fraser Institute’s latest Annual Survey of Mining Companies.

Canada’s standing slipped this year, with only two provinces — Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador — remaining in the global top 10. Saskatchewan placed seventh, down from third in 2024 and second in 2023, while Newfoundland and Labrador ranked eighth.

Rounding out the top five jurisdictions that are most attractive to investors, considering both mineral endowment and policy, are Wyoming and Arizona. The worst performing jurisdictions overall were Ethiopia, followed by Suriname, Niger, Canada’s Nova Scotia, and Mozambique. 

On policies alone, Ireland ranked first and Bolivia last.

With data from FI’s Annual Survey of Mining Companies, 2024.

The survey evaluates jurisdictions based on geological potential and government policies that either encourage or discourage exploration and investment. This year’s edition ranked 82 regions and included responses from about 350 mining professionals, mostly from exploration and mining companies. Participants assessed issues such as tax regimes, permitting timelines, environmental regulations, and labour availability.

Most of the respondents (40%) worked for exploration companies, 32% for mining companies and the remainder identified as consultants or as ‘other’.

Policy uncertainty hits Canada

Policy uncertainty was a recurring concern among respondents, particularly in Canada. The Fraser Institute noted that disputed land claims with Indigenous groups and shifting environmental protections contributed to investor hesitation.

The nation had four provinces ranked amongst the world’s top 10 jurisdictions last year, compared to only two this year.

Yukon, British Columbia, and Manitoba still boast strong geological potential but ranked 40th, 32nd, and 43rd respectively when policy factors were included. Ontario continued its downward slide, falling to 15th from 10th last year due to rising concerns over taxes, labour rules, and political stability. Quebec saw the steepest drop, from fifth to 22nd, amid worries about tax policies, regulatory duplication, and its legal framework.

In response to Nova Scotia’s poor performance, Sean Kirby, executive director of the Mining Association of Nova Scotia, said the province must overhaul its permitting process to unlock its potential.

“Nova Scotia has great geology for critical minerals and many others, but we need to fix permitting to attract investment and create jobs,” Kirby said. “The new Fraser Institute study is a stark reminder that we need to copy how other provinces regulate their mineral sectors.”

Source: FI’s Annual Survey of Mining Companies, 2024.

Kirby added that while most of the government’s mining experts work in the Department of Natural Resources’ Geoscience and Mines Branch, they play almost no role in permitting.

“Instead, we are almost entirely regulated by people in other departments who are not experts in mining,” Kirby said.

Since the survey was conducted between August and December last year, Canada has seen significant political and regulatory shifts.

Mark Carney’s election as prime minister and new federal and provincial legislation aimed at speeding up major project approvals could potentially improve Canada’s standing in next year’s report.

The Trump administration’s alleged bid to get rid of greenhouse gas emissions standards might see more impact on pollution than platinum after its price has jumped almost 50% this year, industry analysts say.

The EPA plans to drop all greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles and engines in the near future, according to a draft proposal, Reuters reported on Thursday. Platinum’s use in auto’s pollution-filtering catalytic converters represents about 30% of global demand, and palladium represents about 80%.

But it could be premature to conclude the EPA’s changes will remove the need for platinum group metals (PGM)-based devices in vehicles, says Ed Sterk, director of research with the World Platinum Investment Council.

“The intention is to scrap some of those controls, but it’s not necessarily to get rid of catalytic converters,” Sterk told The Northern Miner in an interview on Friday. “If you consider living in Los Angeles, which historically has had terrible problems with smog, is Los Angeles a better place with or without catalytic converters and exhaust treatment systems on the vehicles? Most people would argue it’s probably a better place now.”

Emissions standards scrutiny

The EPA is anticipated to conclude that the Clean Air Act doesn’t authorize the agency to impose emission standards and is to lift the finding that GHG vehicle emissions put public health at risk, Reuters said. It follows the passage earlier this month of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, part of which removed fines for failures to meet fuel efficiency rules since 2022.

But even with the converters themselves, Sterk noted they’re part of a complete design package of vehicles’ exhaust driven systems, and can’t just be immediately removed. Cars are going to have them for now regardless of emissions rules.

Platinum prices have gained 49% to $1,410 an oz. as of Monday, according to Trading Economics.

Analysts from Saxo Bank, Bank of America, Heraeus and others cite a rare confluence of tight supply, weak gold price psychology, strong Chinese physical demand, and diverse industrial uses as the foundation for platinum’s strong year-to-date rally. Despite skepticism over sustainability, most expect structural deficits to persist into 2025, supporting continued tightness.

Platinum demand deficit

While Sterk noted that he can’t comment on PGM price changes, demand for platinum is likely to continue exceeding supply, council data show.

Global platinum supply has declined 12% from 8.3 million oz. in 2021 to 7.3 million oz. in 2024, while demand grew 19% in that period, from 6.9 million oz. to 8.3 million ounces. Supply this year is forecast to total 7 million oz. and demand about 8 million ounces.

Catalysts comprise the largest segment of demand for platinum and this year it’s forecast to decline by 5% to 460,000 ounces for North America.

“Even if you remove North America completely, we’d still have a supply and demand shortfall for this year,” Sterk said.

He further noted that if the EPA changes go ahead, legal challenges to the new legislation could slow the pace of its effects on the market.

Palladium surplus

Unlike platinum, palladium has a narrower range of applications and about 80% of its use is for catalytic converters, Sterk said. But with converters and greater electrification of vehicles, the trend is moving towards substituting palladium for platinum.

“Palladium is expected to go into surplus due to recycling,” he said. “We’ve got ongoing deficits in platinum for the foreseeable future, and surplus for palladium.”

Though, palladium prices have gained about 46% to $1,274 per oz. this year to date, the metal’s low prices spurred Impala Platinum (JSE: IMP), widely known as Implats, to decide to close its mine in northern Ontario next May.