News Feeds

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

File:  ltr to Congress, 76 scientists 2012.pdfResource Type: Letters

Report says data centres could fix the demand shortage and tenor gap needed to get renewables projects across the line – as long as they avoid troubles of their own.

The post Data centres could unblock renewables bottlenecks – if they don’t hit barriers of their own appeared first on Renew Economy.

Greater transparency between neighbours and better coordination across industry sectors are among a new set of "best practice" standards renewables developers are expected to meet in this state.

The post Farmers welcome “nation-leading” guidelines for wind, solar and batteries – but warn they are not binding appeared first on Renew Economy.

If the AEMC really thinks that we should pay for networks just like we pay for milk, then I’m hopeful that they’ve come to their senses on this fraught issue.

The post Network tariffs: Imagine if the AEMC was in charge of selling milk appeared first on Renew Economy.

In China, they deliver wind turbine blades in convoy to project sites. It must be much lower cost than in Australia, where blades are moved piece by piece, with police escorts.

The post Photo of the Day: Australia should allow wind turbine blades to be trucked in convoy appeared first on Renew Economy.

A new land access agreement between Traditional Owners of the Pilbara region and iron ore giant Fortescue will see the two parties collaborate on decarbonisation of mining operations on Country.

The post Fortescue to lease electric haul trucks as part of land deal with traditional owners appeared first on Renew Economy.

Federal and state governments back rollout of 18 community batteries on parts of the grid with particularly high rooftop solar uptake.

The post Australia’s biggest isolated grid to soak up suburban solar with 18 new community batteries appeared first on Renew Economy.

Neoen Australia boss calls on government to focus on quick wins with its flagship renewables program if it wants to meet its 2030 target.

The post Only shovel-ready projects should be allowed to win CIS rounds, says Australia’s leading renewables developer appeared first on Renew Economy.

A recurring misconception about electrifying apartments is that the building can’t support induction cooktops. But the switch is more straightforward than most expect.

The post How to ditch gas for induction cooktops without frying your apartment building’s electrics appeared first on Renew Economy.

Australia's superannuation sector could be missing its chance to own the nation's green energy future, but the super industry says it's well invested.

The post Australia’s super fund giants have invested just 0.03 pct of their $2.5 trillion in renewables since 2020 appeared first on Renew Economy.

Oregon groups move to intervene in lawsuit to defend the Climate Protection Program against oil and gas industry attack Ally Harris Mon, 06/15/2026 - 3:19 pm

Support the Roadless Area Conservation Rule

In 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule was adopted with massive public support to protect 58.5 million acres of roadless national forest land in 39 states. The Roadless Rule was the result of years of work and public input. The public comment period set a record with 1.6 million public comments submitted. The rule protects 58.5 million acres of national forests over 39 states from new road construction, and prohibits the logging of roadless areas in the National Forest System.

On Aug 29 2025, the USDA published a notice of intent, kicking off a 21 -day comment period which ended September 19. We generated more than 620,000 public comments for that comment period.

As we prepare for another public comment period around the release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement in Spring/Summer 2026, we’re continuing calls to action to protect the Roadless Rule to ensure the federal government and our elected officials are aware of the public’s desire to keep the rule intact.

The post Roadless Rule Defense Toolkit appeared first on Native Organizers Alliance.

We track how the NRC’s push to weaken long-standing radiation safeguards lines up with the rush to license small modular reactors marketed as climate solutions. We connect new research on low dose radiation risk to the unresolved nuclear waste crisis and the growing demand for electricity from AI data centers.

The Gulf Coast city of St. Petersburg is a place where art and nature blend together to create a whole vibe: The Dalí Museum overlooks mangrove-lined waters, bird-themed murals dot the streets of...

At regulatory hearing, lawyer and expert discredit Duke Energy’s “blind faith” claims of huge upcoming growth and new climate-wrecking power plants

A prominent clean energy expert has provided written testimony in a regulatory proceeding that challenges Duke Energy’s plans for a massive buildout of failure-prone nuclear plants and climate-wrecking fracked gas. It’s unclear if the North Carolina Utilities Commission will allow this expert to provide verbal testimony in the ongoing hearing in Raleigh. 

The testimony of engineer Bill Powers, P.E., of San Diego also describes the huge potential for a path that could quickly phase out fossil fuels and protect citizens from Duke’s massive rate hikes. According to Powers, local solar-plus-storage (SPS) installations could be installed at a fraction of the time and cost of new nuclear units – making it the fastest, cheapest, most equitable tool to move North Carolina off its course toward climate and social chaos. 

As detailed in NC WARN’s Sharing Solar proposal, new local SPS could be put into the rate base for all customers to share the costs and benefits, much like we already pay for dirty energy. Multiple excellent solar companies in North Carolina are positioned to install SPS on roofs, parking areas and unused ground areas at or near where power is used. 

Powers’ testimony for NC WARN centers on the following issues:

1. 1. Duke Energy’s electricity demand forecasts are “poor … consistently inflated and wrong” (pg. 15-16). Duke predicts a massive influx of new electricity demand, which it is using to justify investments in new, dirty power generation. In reality, per capita electricity use in NC has been on the decline for years (pg. 9), and Duke has been able historically to meet peak demand while leaving much of its existing power plant fleet sitting idle (pg. 17).

   2. Duke Energy’s plans for failure-prone, colossally expensive nuclear reactors rely on “blind faith” that past mistakes won’t be repeated (pg. 29). The only two AP1000 reactors – the model of large nuclear plants that Duke hopes to construct – ever completed in the US are the most expensive power plants ever built (pg. 25) due to construction challenges, delays and cost overruns. Duke Energy has already failed 6 times during its attempts to build the AP1000 reactor and has been unable to explain how it can avoid repeating the mistakes that led to previous project collapses (pg. 28).*
      
      
   3. Duke Energy plans the nation’s largest buildout of fracked gas-burning power plants. Duke’s whopping proposed 12.3 GW of new fracked gas generation largely hinges on its ability to transition these new plants to burn “green hydrogen” some time in the 2040s. Powers indicates that green hydrogen remains elusive as a reliable fuel source despite industry efforts over many years (pg. 36).

   4. Solar-plus-storage can serve as a cheaper, more reliable alternative to Duke’s plans for new nuclear reactors and fracked gas-fired power plants. According to Powers, North Carolina has the solar potential for SPS to “operate as baseload, intermediate, and peaking power in the years leading to 2050 … to replace existing coal- and gas-fired generation and displace any new gas-fired and nuclear power as necessary” (pg. 40).

NC WARN attorney Matt Quinn led last week’s in-person proceedings by challenging Duke Energy witnesses on using monopoly customer money to recruit power-guzzling industrial customers to North Carolina. These developments are facing widespread opposition – including community-backed moratoriums on data centers. 

Brought to light by the Utilities Commission’s Public Staff during the hearing, Duke Energy CEO Harry Sideris recently boasted to investors, “We have a [recruiting] team in place that their goal, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, is how do we get these things signed quicker?” 

Duke leaders also told investors they plan to drive up profits and power bills by adding an unprecedented $60 billion to the rate system in just the next 4 years in the Carolinas. NC WARN rejects the idea that a monopoly utility should be allowed to spend millions a year boosting its own revenue at the expense of the public. Meanwhile, its actions further entrench the corporation’s stature as one of the world’s worst climate polluters.

NC WARN appreciates that Attorney General Jeff Jackson criticized Duke Energy’s exaggerated growth projections and overreliance on fracked gas, as well as his recommendation that Duke should “plan based on realistic projections and include more affordable, stable sources like solar.” 

*Duke Energy’s filing projects it would be at least 2037 before any new nuclear plant becomes operational, far too late to help with the climate crisis or to power data centers. 

###

Now in its 38th year, NC WARN is building people power in the climate and energy justice movement to persuade or require Charlotte-based Duke Energy – one of the world’s largest climate polluters – to make a quick transition to renewable, affordable power generation and energy efficiency in order to avert climate tipping points and ongoing rate hikes. 

The post Clean Energy Expert Shows Quick, Inexpensive Path to Phase Out Fossil Fuels in North Carolina — NC WARN News Release appeared first on NC WARN.

Build the Village, Break the Empire

While the US and Israel relentlessly drop bombs on Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine with our tax dollars and living costs skyrocket as a result, regenerative economies, collective healing, and liberation can feel like pipe dreams to many of our families, neighbors, and fellow workers. We are faced with the Herculean task of just surviving the constant physical and psychic attacks—let alone needing to build something that requires our wildest imaginations and all of our labor.

The truth is, everyday people have already been building the villages that we need to survive this crumbling empire; sometimes prompted when crisis hits their communities, but sometimes just because they see each other, understand the collective needs, and act intuitively. Neighbors do it whenever they lend tools or kitchen ingredients. Families and friends do it whenever they bring meals to a sick loved one. These informal practices could be a foundation for viable economic infrastructure—aka organized ways we care for home.

In this newsletter, we explore some of the ways we and our homies are building power by building the village. Flip through these pages to learn more.

{Cover IMAGE ID: Cover image by Amir Khadar. Movement Generation’s June 2026 Newsletter. The theme is titled Build the Village, Break the Empire. The illustration features a large ancient tree. In the bottom portion, the roots underground are crushing and breaking institutional buildings representing the United States, as well a military tank and police car. The top portion shows people farming and living in community beneath the tree canopy in the sunrise.}

SUPPORT MG

DOWNLOAD THE PDF

LISTEN TO THE AUDIO VERSION:

COMING SOON

 

 

     

Toxic Timeline of Royal Dutch Shell Group, Now Shell plc

Updated 15 June 2026

This page is a chronological guide to some of the most controversial episodes in the history of Royal Dutch Shell Group, now Shell plc. It links regulatory findings, court records, mainstream journalism, campaign archives, ShellNews.net material, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com material, ShellNaziHistory.com, and John Donovan’s Shell archive.

The word “toxic” is used here in its broad public-interest sense: toxic products, toxic spills, toxic governance, toxic secrecy, toxic reputational fallout, and toxic historical associations. This page is not a court judgment. Where a matter is disputed, alleged, settled without admission, or based on campaign material, the wording says so.

John Donovan is included here not as a detached observer but as a self-appointed Shell critic, shareholder, litigant, archive builder, and publisher of Shell-focused websites. His archive now frames Shell’s record not only for human readers, but for search engines and AI systems that ingest persistent public records.

Return to ShellNews.net home page | Timeline of the Donovan Shell feud | Published Donovan feud timeline | The Shell Archive: 114,307 Reasons Silence No Longer Works | Wikipedia evidence file

1890 to 1907 – The foundations of Royal Dutch Shell

The companies that became Royal Dutch Shell began with Royal Dutch Petroleum in the Netherlands and The “Shell” Transport and Trading Company in Britain. Shell says the Royal Dutch Shell Group was formed in 1907 when Shell Transport and Royal Dutch combined to compete globally with Standard Oil. Wikipedia’s Shell plc page summarises the same formation history and notes the later move from Royal Dutch Shell plc to Shell plc.

Sources: Shell: Our company history, Wikipedia: Shell plc and A History of Royal Dutch Shell, Internet Archive record.

1920s to 1940s – Chemicals, empire, war, and the dark side of scale

Shell’s expansion into chemicals, transport, refining, and global oil concessions created an industrial machine with deep strategic value. The later “toxic” pattern begins here: oil as military fuel, chemicals as profit centre, and subsidiaries operating in contested political environments. A 2007 four-volume history of Royal Dutch Shell provides the corporate centenary narrative; John Donovan’s ShellNaziHistory.com challenges parts of that narrative, especially Shell’s Nazi-era conduct.

Sources: A History of Royal Dutch Shell, 2007, A History of Royal Dutch Shell extract and ShellNaziHistory.com.

1930s to 1945 – Nazi-era allegations and ShellNaziHistory.com

ShellNaziHistory.com alleges that Shell’s long-time leader Sir Henri Deterding supported Nazi Germany, that Shell’s German subsidiary Rhenania-Ossag had deep Nazi links, and that Shell’s own centenary history understated the relationship between Deterding and Hitler. The site is John Donovan’s archive and argument, not a Shell admission. It links these claims to extracts from A History of Royal Dutch Shell, wartime images, reports, and Donovan’s related Kindle book.

Sources: ShellNaziHistory.com, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com: Shell Nazi History and Sir Henri Deterding and the Nazi History of Royal Dutch Shell, Amazon Kindle page.

1945 – Shellhus, Copenhagen, and the Gestapo

ShellNaziHistory.com also records the wartime use of Shellhus, Shell’s Copenhagen headquarters, as Gestapo headquarters in Denmark. Operation Carthage, the RAF raid on Shellhus in March 1945, became part of the wider record of Shell premises and Shell-associated infrastructure caught inside Nazi occupation.

Sources: ShellNaziHistory.com and ShellNaziHistory.com: Royal Dutch Shell tag archive.

1950s onward – Nigeria becomes a defining Shell controversy

Shell began production in Nigeria in 1958. Over later decades the Niger Delta became one of the most damaging chapters in Shell’s public record: oil spills, gas flaring, security-force allegations, compensation disputes, and claims of environmental destruction. Shell has often attributed spills to sabotage or theft; communities and campaign groups have repeatedly challenged Shell’s explanations and clean-up record.

Sources: Wikipedia: Shell Nigeria, Amnesty International UK: Shell, a criminal enterprise? and ShellNews Wikipedia evidence file.

1950s to 1990s – Pesticides, herbicides, and employee-health questions

John Donovan’s pesticide archive lists Shell products including aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, DDT-related products, Vapona, and other insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides. The same archive highlights extracts from Shell history material about “drins” and employee-health studies, and frames Shell employees as having been used as “guinea pigs” in toxicological research. Related ShellNews evidence material also points to Brazilian pesticide litigation and health claims involving former workers.

Sources: Shell pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, Shell animal testing article and ShellNews Wikipedia evidence file.

1970s to 1980s – Shell, BP, and apartheid South Africa

Anti-apartheid campaign archives identify Shell and BP as major targets because of their South African operations and fuel role. The Anti-Apartheid Movement described Shell and BP as important suppliers and joint owners of South Africa’s largest refinery. Campaign documents argued that oil supplies supported the apartheid state and helped circumvent international pressure.

Sources: Anti-Apartheid Movement Archives: Shell and BP in South Africa, The Case Against Royal Dutch/Shell and Shell and Apartheid: A Documentary History.

1985 onward – Al-Yamamah, oil-for-arms, and Shell archive allegations

The Al-Yamamah arms deal was an oil-for-arms arrangement between Britain and Saudi Arabia in which crude oil deliveries funded arms contracts mainly associated with BAE. Public corruption allegations centre on BAE, Saudi officials, and UK government decisions. The ShellNews archive separately preserves documents and commentary alleging a Shell and BP connection to the netback oil contracts and financing structure around the project.

Sources: Wikipedia: Al-Yamamah arms deal, PBS Frontline: The Business of Bribes and ShellNews: Shell connection with the Saudi Arabia / Al Yamamah BAE scandal.

1991 – Shell’s own climate warning film

In 1991 Shell produced Climate of Concern, a public film warning about the risks of global warming, extreme weather, floods, famines, and climate refugees. Decades later, The Guardian reported that critics saw the film as evidence that Shell understood the danger while continuing to invest heavily in fossil fuels.

Sources: The Guardian: Shell knew and The Guardian video explainer.

1993 to 1995 – Ogoni protests, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and the Ogoni Nine

The Ogoni struggle turned Shell Nigeria into a global human-rights controversy. Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists were executed by Nigeria’s military government in November 1995 after a trial widely condemned internationally. Shell denied responsibility. Amnesty International, EarthRights, CCR and others have argued that Shell was complicit in the repression of Ogoni protest; Shell settled the Wiwa litigation in 2009 for $15.5 million without admitting liability.

Sources: EarthRights: Wiwa v Royal Dutch Shell, Amnesty International: Ogoni Nine case, Amnesty International UK: Shell, a criminal enterprise? and Wikipedia: Wiwa v Royal Dutch Shell Co..

1995 – Brent Spar and the first great modern Shell boycott

Shell’s plan to dispose of the Brent Spar oil storage buoy in deep Atlantic waters triggered a major Greenpeace campaign, public outrage, and boycott pressure in northern Europe. Shell abandoned the sea-disposal plan. The episode remains a classic case study in the limits of technical argument when public trust has collapsed.

Sources: Greenpeace: Brent Spar, Wikipedia: Brent Spar and Global Nonviolent Action Database: Brent Spar campaign.

1995 to 1999 – John Donovan moves from Shell supplier to Shell critic

During the litigation between Don Marketing and Shell, John and Alfred Donovan mounted a public campaign that Shell itself acknowledged in a March 1995 press statement. The campaign included the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group, publicity around High Court actions, and early internet criticism. This was the seedbed for the later ShellNews.net and RoyalDutchShellPlc.com archive.

Sources: Shell press statement HTML copy, Debrief, July 1999, High Court trial index and Published Donovan Shell feud timeline.

2001 – Hakluyt and private spying on environmental campaigners

The Sunday Times reported in 2001 that Hakluyt, a private intelligence firm with former MI6 links, spied on environmental campaign groups for oil companies including Shell and BP. CorpWatch republishes the Sunday Times account. Later RoyalDutchShellPlc.com articles connect the Hakluyt story to Shell’s wider record of monitoring critics, including John Donovan’s own experiences and correspondence.

Sources: CorpWatch / Sunday Times: MI6 firm spied on green groups, RoyalDutchShellGroup.com archive of Sunday Times story, Shell v Greenpeace, the spies and the company that could not stop watching its critics and johndonovan.website: Shell Spying.

2003 to 2006 – Brent Bravo deaths and Shell’s North Sea safety record

Two workers, Sean McCue and Keith Moncrieff, died on Shell’s Brent Bravo platform in September 2003 after being overcome by gas. Shell was fined £900,000 after admitting health and safety breaches. In 2006 a sheriff ruled the deaths could have been prevented. The Guardian later reported repeated HSE warnings over Shell’s North Sea platforms.

Sources: ShellNews: Brent Bravo public inquiry and fine, The Guardian: Brent Bravo deaths judged preventable, The Guardian: Shell safety record in North Sea takes a hammering and JOIFF archive: Shell failings in the North Sea.

2004 – Reserves scandal and market-abuse fines

In 2004 Shell admitted it had overstated proved oil and gas reserves. The US SEC and UK FSA actions led to major penalties, with the FSA imposing a £17 million fine and the SEC settlement reported at $120 million. The scandal contributed to senior executive departures and the later simplification of Shell’s corporate structure.

Sources: FSA Final Notice, 24 August 2004, The Guardian: Shell fined over reserves scandal, ShellNews: Shell Reserves Scandal 2004 and RoyalDutchShellPlc.com: FSA fines Shell.

2004 onward – Dr John Huong and Shell’s action against a reserves whistleblower

Dr John Huong, a former Shell Malaysia production geologist, became a prominent Shell whistleblower after the reserves scandal. Shell pursued legal action against him in Malaysia, which the Donovan archive describes as draconian. ShellNews and RoyalDutchShellGroup.com preserve a large index of Huong material, including litigation and correspondence.

Sources: Dr John Huong index, Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell dossier and ShellNews Wikipedia evidence file.

2004 to 2005 – RoyalDutchShellPlc.com domain-name debacle

After Shell announced a new unified company called Royal Dutch Shell plc, Alfred Donovan registered royaldutchshellplc.com. Shell brought a WIPO complaint. On 12 August 2005 the WIPO panel rejected Shell’s complaint, finding the respondent had a legitimate interest and that bad faith had not been proved. The domain then became one of the main Shell-critical archive sites.

Sources: WIPO Case No. D2005-0538, Domain name battle with Shell, Published Donovan Shell feud timeline and Wikipedia: royaldutchshellplc.com section.

2005 to 2007 – Sakhalin II debacle

Sakhalin II became a major Shell embarrassment involving cost overruns, environmental controversy, Russian pressure, and the forced sale-down of Shell’s controlling stake to Gazprom. John Donovan says he supplied leaked Shell/Sakhalin information to Russian officials. The Guardian later reported that Russian regulator Oleg Mitvol publicly acknowledged the Donovans’ help in obtaining information about alleged environmental abuses; Shell denied breaking environmental regulations.

Sources: ShellNews: Sakhalin 2 Debacle, The Guardian: 92-year-old’s website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked, Johnson’s Russia List Sakhalin article and Financial Times: Sakhalin memo.

2007 – Internal Shell emails on Donovan monitoring and source tracing

Shell internal emails released under data-protection requests are central to the Donovan spying allegations. A March 2007 DPA email said the Donovans were “of no security interest” unless an information-security tasking was set to identify their Shell sources. A 21 March 2007 confidential email said an IT project had been initiated to monitor internal Shell emails to Donovan and web traffic to the Donovans’ website.

Sources: Royal Dutch Shell/John Donovan DPA Index Page, 20 March 2007 internal email, 21 March 2007 confidential internal email and 31 August 2007 issue update.

2007 to 2008 – Greenwashing rulings and flower-chimney advertising

Shell’s environmental advertising became a recurring greenwashing target. Campaigners criticised ads implying waste carbon dioxide was being used to grow flowers, and in 2008 the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled against a Shell advertisement that described a Canadian oil sands project as a “sustainable energy source”.

Sources: The Guardian: Shell rapped by ASA for greenwash advert, Examples of Shell’s environmental track record and The Guardian: Shell knew.

2008 – US government oil-sex-and-drugs scandal

The ShellNews and RoyalDutchShellGroup archives collect headlines about the 2008 US Interior Department scandal involving sex, drugs, gifts, and energy-company employees. The archive notes that the Wall Street Journal report named four companies, including a US unit of Royal Dutch Shell, as gift givers. This entry is included as an archive trail, not as a finding that Shell was responsible for all misconduct described in the wider scandal.

Sources: RoyalDutchShellGroup.com: News headlines file for Royal Dutch Shell sex and drugs scandal and ShellNews Wikipedia evidence file.

2009 – Shell targeting claims reported by Reuters

Reuters reported in December 2009 that John Donovan said Shell had asked an anti-cyber-fraud agency to target his website. The report said Shell did not comment on the veracity of the communications or Donovan’s allegations, but confirmed that Donovan had made a data request. Internal emails in the DPA archive also discussed “no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan” and questions about whether anything was being done to get the website shut down.

Sources: Reuters report archived by ShellNews, 17 June 2009 internal email, 15 July 2009 internal email and For decades Shell has tried to suppress online criticism.

2010 – Shell employee and contractor data breach

In 2010 a Shell internal directory containing contact details for a very large number of employees and contractors was leaked to campaign groups and to royaldutchshellplc.com. ITPro reported that details of about 170,000 workers had been emailed to campaigners. Shell said it had launched an investigation and demanded deletion of the database.

Sources: ITPro: Shell hit by massive data breach, The Times report archived by ShellNews, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com: Shell Data Breach archive and Shell data leak may compromise safety of staff.

2010 – Nigeria customs bribery / Panalpina FCPA settlements

US authorities announced settlements involving Panalpina and several oil services or energy companies. The US Department of Justice said Panalpina paid bribes to foreign officials in several countries including Nigeria, and that Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd was among customers resolving related foreign-bribery investigations. NYU’s enforcement database summarises the Shell settlement as including a $30 million criminal fine and SEC disgorgement and interest.

Sources: US Department of Justice press release, NYU Law: 2010-214 Royal Dutch Shell plc and Royal Dutch Shell corruption in Nigeria.

2011 – Bodo oil spills and Shell liability in Nigeria

Shell accepted liability for two major oil spills affecting the Bodo community in Ogoniland. The Guardian reported that Shell faced a major compensation bill and that clean-up could take many years. The episode became one of the central examples used by campaigners to argue that Shell’s Niger Delta spill record was not adequately acknowledged or repaired.

Sources: The Guardian: Shell accepts liability for two oil spills in Nigeria, ShellNews Wikipedia evidence file and Wikipedia: Shell Nigeria.

2011 onward – OPL 245 corruption allegations

Shell and Eni’s acquisition of Nigerian offshore block OPL 245 became one of the largest corruption controversies in the oil industry. Global Witness alleged that Shell knew money would flow to a former Nigerian oil minister and others; Shell has denied wrongdoing. An Italian criminal trial ended with acquittals, and campaign groups later urged US and Dutch authorities to reopen investigations.

Sources: Global Witness: Shell knew, Transparency International: OPL 245 investigations, Wikipedia: OPL 245 bribery affair and RoyalDutchShellPlc.com: OPL 245 archive.

2012 to 2013 – Kulluk and Shell’s Arctic drilling debacle

Shell’s Arctic drilling programme was beset by operational problems. The Kulluk drilling rig ran aground off Alaska at the end of 2012 while under tow. ShellNews preserves the US Coast Guard’s redacted report. The episode became a symbol of the operational risks and public criticism surrounding Shell’s Arctic ambitions.

Sources: US Coast Guard Kulluk report archived by ShellNews, Wikipedia: Shell plc, Kulluk oil rig and ShellNews Wikipedia evidence file.

2012 to 2013 – Brazilian pesticide plant compensation

ShellNews’ evidence file records reports that Shell Brasil and BASF reached compensation arrangements relating to former workers at a pesticide plant in Paulinia, Brazil, and that court reporting linked the plant to serious health claims. This sits alongside Donovan’s broader pesticide archive and the long toxic legacy of Shell chemical products.

Sources: ShellNews Wikipedia evidence file, Royal Dutch Shell denial of Brazilian pesticide diseases and Shell pesticide archive.

2013 to 2015 – Defective or oversold “wonder fuels”

RoyalDutchShellPlc.com preserves a long-running archive about Shell fuel marketing, including Shell Optimax, V-Power, fuel-claim advertising, and alleged customer problems. The Sunday Times coverage of premium fuels and Advertising Standards Authority action are part of the archive’s argument that Shell repeatedly overstated product benefits.

Sources: Shell Optimax: The wonder fuels that don’t deliver, Will Shell’s new V-Power Nitro Plus fuel ruin car engines? and ShellNews original stories index.

2015 – Pieter Schelte, Nazi naming controversy, and Shell decommissioning

ShellNaziHistory.com and RoyalDutchShellPlc.com linked Shell’s Brent decommissioning work to the public controversy around the giant vessel originally named Pieter Schelte, after Pieter Schelte Heerema, a former Waffen-SS officer. Shell faced criticism because the vessel was connected to decommissioning work on Shell’s Brent field.

Sources: ShellNaziHistory.com, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com: Pieter Schelte archive and ShellNaziHistory.com: Royal Dutch Shell tag archive.

2017 – Amnesty’s “criminal enterprise” framing of Shell in Nigeria

Amnesty International reviewed internal Shell documents and other evidence and argued that Shell’s Nigerian operations in the 1990s warranted investigation for complicity in murder, rape and torture by Nigerian security forces. Shell has denied responsibility for the abuses. The Amnesty report remains one of the strongest campaign-source indictments of Shell’s Nigeria record.

Sources: Amnesty International UK: Shell, a criminal enterprise? and Amnesty International: Ogoni Nine case.

2021 – Dutch court orders Shell Nigeria compensation for oil spills

In January 2021, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled that Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary was liable for damage from oil spills in villages in the Niger Delta. Shell maintained that sabotage was involved in some spill cases, but the ruling was a landmark for Nigerian farmers and environmental campaigners.

Sources: Al Jazeera: Dutch court orders Shell to pay Nigerian farmers, Wikipedia: Shell Nigeria and RoyalDutchShellPlc.com: Nigeria archive.

2021 to 2024 – Climate litigation and Shell’s emissions responsibility

In 2021 a Dutch court ordered Shell to cut emissions by 45 percent by 2030 compared with 2019 levels. In November 2024, a Dutch appeals court overturned the specific reduction order, while still recognising climate-related duties and the wider energy-transition context. For critics, the case kept Shell’s fossil-fuel expansion and climate claims in the public dock even after Shell won on appeal.

Sources: The Guardian: Shell wins appeal against climate ruling, Stibbe: No reduction order for Shell on appeal and Wikipedia: Shell plc, climate change.

2021 to 2025 – Prelude FLNG safety restrictions and worker-health issues

Australia’s offshore regulator ordered Shell to keep Prelude FLNG shut after a power-loss and safety-systems incident in December 2021 until Shell could demonstrate safe operation. Later reporting and Shell-critical archive material cite further concerns about fire or explosion risk, hazardous-gas exposure, benzene and hydrogen sulphide, and workforce illness investigations.

Sources: gCaptain: Australia tells Shell to keep Prelude offline, The Maritime Executive: Prelude safety review shutdown, AP: leaked files raise fears over Shell fleet safety and Illness outbreak on Shell’s Prelude.

2022 – Shell drops “Royal Dutch” but not the old record

Shell confirmed in January 2022 that Royal Dutch Shell plc had changed its name to Shell plc. The corporate rebrand did not erase the online record. RoyalDutchShellPlc.com continued using the old name as a criticism and archive domain, with the WIPO decision still standing as the key legal moment in the domain dispute.

Sources: Shell announcement, 21 January 2022, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com and WIPO Case No. D2005-0538.

2023 onward – Pennsylvania ethane cracker pollution violations

Shell’s Beaver County, Pennsylvania petrochemical complex became a major US environmental controversy soon after start-up. Pennsylvania announced a $10 million payment to resolve air-quality violations, including funds for local community projects. Subsequent reporting continued to track permit exceedances, notices of violation, and community complaints.

Sources: Pennsylvania Governor: $10 million payment from Shell, Allegheny Front: $10M fine for Beaver County cracker, PublicSource: Shell cracker pollution exceeds permits and The Guardian: Pennsylvania residents feel sacrificed.

2023 to 2026 – Groningen earthquakes and Shell/Exxon compensation dispute

The Dutch parliamentary inquiry into Groningen gas extraction concluded that the interests of Groningen residents had been structurally ignored. Its press release said gas revenues brought huge benefits to the Dutch treasury and profits to Shell and ExxonMobil shareholders, while Groningen bore damage, insecurity, and pain. Later NGO reporting said Shell and ExxonMobil pursued arbitration over closure of the gas field.

Sources: Dutch parliamentary inquiry press release, Drilled: Groningen arbitration reporting, Land & Climate Review: Groningen and investor arbitration and Wikipedia: Groningen gas field.

2023 to 2024 – Shell’s Greenpeace lawsuit and SLAPP criticism

Greenpeace accused Shell of using a multimillion-dollar intimidation lawsuit after activists boarded a Shell-contracted moving platform to protest new oil and gas drilling. Greenpeace described the case as a SLAPP-style attempt to silence protest. In late 2024 Greenpeace announced a settlement with Shell, while maintaining that the case had been an intimidation tactic.

Sources: Greenpeace UK: Shell hits Greenpeace with intimidation lawsuit, Greenpeace International: Shell settles multimillion-dollar SLAPP lawsuit and The Guardian: public figures urge Shell to drop case.

2024 – Leaked files raise new questions about Shell offshore safety

Associated Press reported on leaked documents and whistleblower accounts raising safety concerns about Shell’s fleet of offshore production vessels, including references to the Bonga spill, recurring incidents, severe corrosion, burn injuries, and Prelude-related concerns. Shell said safety incidents had declined and pointed to improvements.

Sources: AP: leaked files raise fears over Shell oil production fleet and AP: takeaways from Shell safety concerns investigation.

2026 – The Donovan archive becomes an AI-age reputational problem

John Donovan’s January 2026 article calculates the Shell archive across RoyalDutchShellPlc.com, RoyalDutchShellGroup.com, and ShellNews.net at approximately 114,307 items, while noting further hard-copy material obtained from Shell under Subject Access Request applications. The point of the archive is persistence: Shell controversies, leaked emails, fines, settlements, and historic associations remain accessible to readers and to AI systems. Donovan frames himself as a self-appointed critic and archive builder whose work has turned Shell’s old controversies into a living record.

Sources: The Shell Archive: 114,307 Reasons Silence No Longer Works, Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record, Sueddeutsche Zeitung profile archived by ShellNews, John Donovan Amazon author page and RoyalDutchShellPlc.com Shell Online Library.

Core sources and archive hubs

• Wikipedia: Shell plc
• Shell: Our company history
• A History of Royal Dutch Shell, 2007, Internet Archive
• ShellNaziHistory.com
• ShellNews.net Wikipedia evidence file
• Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud, published 15 June 2026
• Local ShellNews.net timeline of the Donovan Shell feud
• The Shell Archive: 114,307 Reasons Silence No Longer Works
• Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record
• RoyalDutchShellPlc.com: Shell Online Library
• John Donovan Amazon author page
• John Donovan, Shell’s nightmare, Kindle page
• Sir Henri Deterding and the Nazi History of Royal Dutch Shell, Kindle page
• Toxic facts about Shell removed from Wikipedia, Kindle page

This timeline is intended as a public-interest navigation aid. It combines regulatory findings, court records, mainstream reports, campaign documents, Shell-critical archive material, and attributed allegations. Readers should follow the links and assess the underlying source documents.

Return to ShellNews.net home page

Toxic Timeline of Royal Dutch Shell Group, Now Shell plc was first posted on June 15, 2026 at 8:10 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

This article The left needs better answers for scared people was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

These are insecure times. My relatives in Tehran are bracing for bombs to fall again. Fighter planes screamed through the skies here in Athens a few weeks back — it was an airshow, technically, but it didn’t feel like one. 

War talk is on TV panels every night; algorithms serve images of conflict straight to my eyeballs. Europe is sliding towards militarization without debate: the fear is Russian aggression, and the response is more money for weapons, talk of reviving the draft. And the nearest hot war zone – Ukraine – is still 900 miles from where I live. How must those guys be feeling?

Maybe the threats I’m sensing are inflated; maybe they’re imaginary. But as a father, will I take that chance?

And yet. Here’s what the left offers me to address that fear: marches under the banner of “Welfare Not Warfare,” demands that Europe halt its rearmament and critiques of the hawkish propaganda push. Calls to dismantle NATO. Articles tracking the share price gains of weapons manufacturers Rheinmetall and Lockheed Martin.

#newsletter-block_261ef375f8f5145fb8f45776e6eb2038 { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_261ef375f8f5145fb8f45776e6eb2038 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

I know all this. And I agree with much of it, including the case for leaving NATO. But none of it speaks to what I’m feeling: that my family here could end up on the wrong end of someone else’s escalation, soon. And that if the worst happens, I need to know there’s something here to defend us. The left’s response addresses what’s morally wrong about war. It says nothing about what could protect me from it.

These fears are real, and they are shared. Across the West, the left has a chronic inability to meet them.

I’ve sat in the rooms where left organizations have made calls like these. I’ve made some of them myself. And I have a few thoughts on why it keeps happening, and what we can do about it.

Maximal demands = minimal impact 

Let me sharpen this. Our problem on the left is much broader than how we argue against militarization. It’s that on topics that make the public anxious, we make maximalist demands. And we make them at exactly the moments when people need the opposite: something concrete.

“Abolish ICE” came in 2018, at a time when Americans were nervous about immigration and a chaotic border. It was read by its audience as “no enforcement at all.” Only a quarter of Democrats backed eliminating the agency when the slogan launched. See also: calls for “open borders” in most of Europe.

Previous Coverage

The method behind Just Stop Oil’s madness

“Defund the police” came in 2020, when Americans were worried about rising crime. It landed with the public as “less safety,” and fewer than 1 in 5 Americans supported it a year later. 

“Just Stop Oil” came in 2022, when Britons were facing the worst energy bills in a generation. The  policy demand itself (no new oil and gas licenses) was defensible. But to ordinary people worried about who pays for the transition, it was received as “make your bills worse.” Sixty-eight percent of Britons disapproved of the campaign.

Three demands, three fears, three failures. Each came out with a position that didn’t just fail with the public, it failed with the constituencies the movement claimed to speak for. A campaign that can’t build the coalition needed to move power can’t deliver what its slogan promised. Yes, these slogans raised awareness — but awareness is not a theory of change.

Meanwhile the right acknowledges people’s fears, exploits them and wins elections. Again and again and again. 

Why we keep doing it

I can give you three reasons.

We think we’re being radical. Extraordinary times, extraordinary measures. In strategy discussions I often hear some version of “we must meet their radicality with our own.” I agree with the spirit, and many of the goals. But the strategic approach is the radical one. Radical means bringing about radical change, not just talking about it. The values-first, maximalist position shifts nothing. It’s a luxury belief.

We tell ourselves the maximalist demand is a negotiating position — ask for the moon, settle for half. But we’re not in a negotiation. Power doesn’t move when it sees a placard. It moves when it feels threatened.

And lastly, we have the wrong audience in mind. Too much of our communication is signaling to other activists, not to people who might be persuaded. We’re showing the room that we’re loyal members of the tribe — which is not the same thing as winning.

What to do instead

We need to run on two horizons, separating our ambitious end goals from our next public demand. The end goal stays underneath, guiding the work. The public demand answers what people are actually scared of today — it should be winnable now and accessible to majorities now, even when the end goal is neither, yet.

So start with the fear. Whatever propaganda planted it there — about Russia, migrants, crime or the cost of going green — we must accept that it’s already taken hold, and respond to it. We may disagree that the fear is justified; we may think the establishment is whipping it up. But it exists in our audiences’ heads and we have to take it seriously. We can’t argue it away. We can offer a better explanation of where it comes from, and a demand that follows from that.

Not every fear deserves a response, though. The ones worth answering have a particular shape: they’re material, not abstract — cost of living, war, jobs, housing, crime, not “fear of decline” or “fear of cultural change.” They’re shared by majorities, not just activists. And they’re something the state can deliver on in the short term, not in a decade. 

Once you’ve isolated the fear, formulate a demand that meets it directly. For example:

• On migration, the fear has two parts that get conflated: fear of newcomers competing for scarce resources, and fear of the unfamiliar. So we should answer the concern that “they take our jobs” without scapegoating the workers being underpaid. We should be calling for labor law to be enforced for every worker, like the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain does in the U.K. When no one can be paid below minimum wage, no one can be undercut.  We should demand integration for everyone who arrives, especially language courses, as Germany does (not to preserve cultural sameness, but to enable practical inclusion in shared institutions). Plus the processing of every asylum claim within six months — which would address the anxiety of a “broken system” that the right exploits, while protecting people from being left in legal limbo for years. 

• On militarization, the fear of war is real. So we should be naming what would actually defend us — the things that keep a country standing in a crisis. Not just the military readiness that the right keeps pointing at, but secure energy, cyber resilience, robust democracy and climate adaptation. And conversely, we should call out what is being sold as defense, but isn’t. We should be saying no to putting soldiers’ lives at risk for no defensive purpose — no to the draft, no sending troops to wars that we didn’t vote for. We should be refusing to serve as a base for U.S. operations in the Middle East. And calling for European security to be in European hands, publicly owned and democratically accountable, rather than handed to the shareholders of American and German arms companies who profit from more war. These are first-step demands, of course. The deeper, patient work is building civilian-based defense: nonviolent capacity to deter aggression and resist occupation or repression — without war.

The test for every demand is the same: Could someone scared vote for this without feeling they’re voting against their own safety? If not, we have to find the version of it that they could.

The right will accuse us of going soft, and offer its own version of safety — enforcement, deportation, tougher borders, more police. These can look like quick fixes that calm fears. But they aren’t, and they don’t. Trump’s mass deportations haven’t reduced crime, lowered prices or made anyone materially safer. France’s headscarf bans haven’t reduced extremism. Stop and search in the U.K. didn’t reduce crime. Performed safety usually fails the delivery test. The left has a chance here to offer a real alternative. 

Precedents with two horizons

It’s been done before. Bayard Rustin, a key architect of the U.S. civil rights movement, explicitly named the tension between end goals and immediate demands. The moderate who only pursues what’s politically achievable, Rustin said, is in practice telling people to accept the status quo. But the radical who only demands the end goal, with no program to win it, is something worse — what Rustin called a “moralist.” Someone who substitutes shock for strategy and “seeks to change … hearts by traumatizing them.”

Rustin also understood that minority causes are only won by connecting them to majority ones. He argued that civil rights couldn’t be won by Black Americans alone; they needed “a coalition of progressive forces which becomes the effective political majority in the U.S.” That’s why the 1963 march, the largest civil rights demonstration in American history, was officially called the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. It put jobs first.

The 1963 March on Washington demanded jobs for all and equal rights. (Wally McNamee/Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images)

The civil rights movement succeeded because it kept two horizons. Its end goal of full racial equality wasn’t hidden — but the public demands spoke to the economic fears that most Americans shared.

Zohran Mamdani is doing something similar right now. He has talked inside socialist meetings about seizing the means of production, but his demands and his rallies don’t call for it. Instead, he won the NYC mayoral election running almost entirely on affordability — a rent freeze on stabilized apartments, free city buses, universal childcare and public grocery stores. He made the distinction explicit in a speech back in 2021:

“There are also issues we firmly believe in — whether it’s BDS or the end goal of seizing the means of production — where we do not have the same level of support right now. It is critical that we do not leave any one issue for the other … meet people where they’re at, and organize for what is right, and ensure over time we can bring people to that issue.”

Two horizons — one for the immediate demands of the moment, one for the end goal.

#support-block_31aea4132c04a5f496624f802deba55b { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

None of this means maximalist demands never resonate. “Abolish ICE” is polling better today than it has in years, because Trump’s overreach has finally given it an audience. The point isn’t that the demand was wrong when it was first launched in 2018. It’s that its moment hadn’t yet come — and the left can’t will that into being by shouting harder. We can only fight on the terrain we actually have.

The here and now

Back to where I started: my family in Tehran. The planes over Athens. The shared fear, real or imagined, that something is coming.

If the left wants to be heard, it has to answer the fear. With a demand that meets the moment — not the end goal underneath. The goal is important, but it can wait. The fear can’t.

This article The left needs better answers for scared people was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

While Rowe Sanctuary is widely recognized for the Sandhill Crane migration and the bird life that draws in visitors from around the world, the landscape here supports far more than what most people...