News Feeds

Governments at the COP17 nature summit in Armenia agreed on Saturday to scale up their policies to protect the planet’s shrinking biodiversity, and for the first time invited large emerging economies like China and Gulf states to take on donor responsibilities to help fund those efforts.

For the past two weeks, countries held talks in Yerevan under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to outline a plan to ramp up currently “insufficient” policies to conserve land and marine ecosystems. A recent UN progress report found the world is off track to meet 22 out of 23 global targets aimed at reversing species loss and protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030.

While a response plan, called the “Global Review of Collective Progress”, was expected to be the main outcome of COP17, negotiations struggled to advance amid a deadlock over the controversial subject of how to finance the boost in conservation measures needed.

After an all-night session on Friday, delegates agreed to invite developing countries to voluntarily signal their interest in assuming donor funding obligations alongside developed nations. Negotiators repeatedly warned that any stronger provisions on expanding the donor base would collapse the deal.

COP president: Results beat expectations

An exhausted COP17 president Hambardzum Matevosyan, Armenia’s environment minister, told journalists in the early hours of Saturday that “we’ve achieved more than we could’ve expected” given the “importance” of the decisions being taken.

“It was 100% possible that those items did not made it through. 100% possible,” he said, adding that the conference had made progress on “all the most important items”.

Speaking at the closing plenary, the group of Pacific Islands said that, while the summit had achieved “great outcomes”, delegates are also departing Yerevan “with realities not reflected in the official text”, such as the low replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a key funder of nature projects.

• Oct 28, 2026 News Stalemate on finance at COP17 nature talks exposes need for new sources At talks in Yerevan, the EU has proposed expanding the list of nature donors so that large emerging economies like China can help fund biodiversity protection Read more
• Oct 26, 2026 News Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive Lula’s re-election makes it more likely Brazil can meet a key goal to end forest loss in the Amazon and builds confidence in a new fund to protect the world’s rainforests, experts say Read more

Some observers also said the deal did not go far enough. Steven Guilbeault, a former Canadian environment minister who helped broker the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), said the Yerevan package of action is “an important step forward”, but still “falls short of what is needed to meet our 2030 commitments”.

An Lambrechts, biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International, said COP17 had kept things moving forward and set well-intentioned promises, but added that these “won’t remove major roadblocks to implementation” such as insufficient finance and debt constraints in developing countries.

WWF chief conservation officer Daudi Sumba noted that financial issues were not fully resolved. Despite the deal in Yerevan, “I fear finance will remain the key issue that continues to haunt the UN biodiversity summits,” he said in a statement.

‘Yerevan Pathway’ tackles nature plans and subsidies

In the lead-up to the summit, the UN assessment report showed countries are falling short on virtually all targets in the GBF, the 2022 global deal often referred to as the ‘Paris Agreement for nature’.

They include a landmark target to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030. If countries all stick to their current national goals, about 26% of land would be protected and only about 12% of marine ecosystems would be under conservation measures by the end of this decade.

The main COP17 decision – named the Yerevan Pathway by the presidency – calls for countries to revise their biodiversity plans, subject to available funding, with a particular focus on addressing the gap in coverage of “marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems”.

It also urges the over 60 countries that have not yet submitted a national plan to finalise one “as soon as possible”, while taking into account the gaps identified by the UN progress report.

Countries also agreed to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss by “accelerating” the reduction of subsidies for activities that damage nature. Subsidy reform, covered by Target 18 of the GBF, is where countries have made the least progress so far, according to the assessment report.

Jill Hepp, director of nature and marine policy and incentives at green group Conservation International, said singling out subsidies in the Yerevan Pathway “gives a strong signal” that closing the gap for biodiversity action requires “more urgent efforts to reform harmful incentives and scale up positive incentives”.

Delegates huddle for a last-minute negotiation at the COP17 closing plenary in Yerevan, Armenia, on October 31, 2026. (Photo: IISD/ENB – Mike Muzurakis) Delegates huddle for a last-minute negotiation at the COP17 closing plenary in Yerevan, Armenia, on October 31, 2026. (Photo: IISD/ENB – Mike Muzurakis) “Timid” steps to expand base of donors

Having failed to meet a target to channel $20 billion for biodiversity conservation by 2025 and faced with shrinking aid budgets, the EU pushed a proposal to expand the list of which countries count as donors, so that wealthy emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia could also voluntarily contribute. The group of Arab nations strongly opposed this.

During the talks, Irish minister of state for nature, Christopher O’Sullivan, whose country holds the EU presidency, said the bloc wanted the world’s “new realities” to be reflected in the donor list.

Negotiations remained gridlocked for most of the two-week talks, until a last-day compromise was struck to invite developing countries that may want donor status “to indicate to the [Convention on Biological Diversity] secretariat their interest in being included in the corresponding list”.

Countries also asked the secretariat to send an invitation to emerging economies wanting donor status at each subsequent COP, and requested a technical report on “the implications of inclusion in the list” for emerging economies.

Swiss lead negotiator Gabriela Blatter said her country had expected greater steps towards expanding the base of contributing countries, but added that “if we’re mutually unhappy, it’s probably the closest we can get on these very delicate political compromises”. Saudi Arabia expressed dissatisfaction, saying it had expected “a lot less”.

The fragile deal was approved in a package of decisions together with the Global Review, after some delegations including Brazil and China appealed to the plenary not to make further changes to the text at the risk of collapsing the whole agreement.

In a statement delivered to the closing plenary, the EU said the finance outcome had delivered “timid” progress towards fully broadening the base of donors.

An EU negotiator speaks at the COP17 closing plenary in Yerevan, Armenia on October 31, 2026. (Photo: UN Biodiversity) An EU negotiator speaks at the COP17 closing plenary in Yerevan, Armenia on October 31, 2026. (Photo: UN Biodiversity) Cali Fund still not operational

Adopted two years ago at COP16, the Cali Fund was seen by some observers as a way to channel private-sector finance into biodiversity conservation, as governments struggle to find public funds. But it is still struggling to get up on its feet.

The fund allows big corporations to access certificates for the use of genetic material found in biodiversity in return for a financial contribution, which experts estimate has the potential to raise up to $6.9bn for biodiversity. While voluntary, companies are encouraged to pay 1% of their profits or 0.1% of revenue into the fund.

But since its creation, the fund has received little more than $10,000, which Guilbeault argued is because the rules for disbursements to local communities and the operation of the fund had yet to be fleshed out. This was due to happen at COP17.

Yet, while the final decision on the fund laid out some of the rules – including how companies can earn “Cali Fund certificates” – some key technical details were left to the next COP in 2028 in Ecuador. This includes the issue of whether companies can pay a lower rate if they use genetic data for only a small portion of their products.

“By punting essential decisions to two years from now, parties have all but ensured the fund remains empty until then,” said Pakhi Das, a public policy advisor at NGO Plant-for-the-Planet.

The post COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature appeared first on Climate Home News.

Shell’s latest financial statements reveal a remarkable accounting consequence of the Middle East conflict. While the oil giant reports extraordinary profits, soaring tanker freight rates have triggered billions of dollars in additional shipping-lease liabilities. The figures are non-cash adjustments, not realised losses, but they expose another dimension of Shell’s vulnerability to geopolitical disruption.

By John Donovan — 31 October 2026

Shell plc’s spectacular third-quarter profits have attracted considerable attention.

The company reported adjusted earnings of $10.814 billion on 29 October 2026, almost double the amount recorded in the corresponding quarter last year.

The financial results have already generated controversy over the extent to which major oil producers are benefiting from the Iran war and the resulting disruption to international energy markets.

But another significant disclosure, buried in the accompanying financial statements, deserves closer examination.

Shell reports that changes in shipping-market conditions resulted in $5.4 billion of non-cash increases in the variable component of its shipping leases during the third quarter.

And the figure becomes even more striking when the reporting period is extended.

During the first nine months of 2026, Shell recorded $7.684 billion in upward adjustments to shipping-lease liabilitiesas a consequence of rising freight-rate indices associated with the Middle East conflict.

These are extraordinary figures.

They are not, however, equivalent to billions of dollars in immediate cash losses.

Understanding that distinction is essential to interpreting what Shell has disclosed.

What Shell actually revealed

The relevant information appears in Shell’s third-quarter financial report, published on 29 October 2026 and included in its US regulatory reporting.

A footnote on page 2 explains that the company’s quarterly lease additions include $5.4 billion in non-cash increases associated with the variable component of shipping leases.

A more detailed explanation appears in Note 7, under the heading Debt, on page 33.

Shell states that certain vessel leases involve payments linked to market indices.

Under International Financial Reporting Standard IFRS 16, the company is required to remeasure the associated lease liabilities using applicable spot rates.

During the first nine months of 2026, the Middle East conflict caused substantial increases in the underlying freight-rate indices.

The result was a $7.684 billion increase in the relevant lease liabilities compared with their measurement at 31 December 2025.

Shell also recognised corresponding adjustments to the associated right-of-use assets in its property, plant and equipment.

The company cautions that the spot rates used in these calculations may not reflect the payments ultimately made under its long-term shipping arrangements.

That warning is particularly important.

A sharp rise in a freight-rate index can produce a large accounting adjustment without necessarily producing an equivalent increase in the future cash payments actually required.

Nevertheless, the figures reveal the scale of Shell’s exposure to exceptionally volatile shipping markets.

Why the Iran conflict matters

Oil and liquefied natural gas are transported through international shipping networks that can be severely affected by military conflict, sanctions, port restrictions and changing security conditions.

The Middle East occupies an especially important position in those networks.

The Strait of Hormuz, connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman, is one of the world’s most strategically significant energy transport routes.

Disruption affecting shipping in the region can increase insurance costs, alter vessel availability, lengthen voyages and raise freight rates.

For a company with Shell’s international trading and LNG operations, such changes can have substantial consequences.

Shell does not merely produce and sell hydrocarbons.

It also operates within a vast international system of commodity trading, maritime transport, storage and supply contracts.

Consequently, the commercial impact of geopolitical instability can extend far beyond changes in the market prices of oil and gas.

The latest financial statements demonstrate that shipping costs and related accounting obligations can also become major sources of volatility.

Importantly, Shell expressly links the increased freight-rate indices underlying its lease adjustments to the Middle East conflict.

That connection is not an allegation from an environmental organisation or an outside commentator.

It is the company’s own explanation in its published financial statements.

How can a lease liability increase by billions without a cash loss?

This is the central accounting question.

Under IFRS 16, companies generally recognise liabilities representing the present value of qualifying future lease payments.

They also recognise corresponding right-of-use assets reflecting their contractual rights to use the leased equipment or property.

In Shell’s case, some of these arrangements concern vessels whose lease payments are linked to shipping-market indices.

When the relevant indices change, accounting rules may require the recognised lease liabilities to be recalculated.

If the applicable market index rises dramatically, the present value of future payments used in the accounting calculation can increase substantially.

A corresponding adjustment is generally made to the right-of-use asset.

The result is that both the liability and the recognised asset can increase even though no immediate cash transaction has occurred.

Shell’s own figures illustrate the effect.

At 30 September 2026, the company’s total lease liabilities stood at $34.147 billion, compared with $28.933 billion at 31 December 2025.

This net balance-sheet increase is smaller than the $7.684 billion index-related adjustment because other movements, including lease payments and changes elsewhere in the lease portfolio, also affect the overall balance.

The $7.684 billion figure is therefore not the total increase in Shell’s lease liabilities.

Nor should it be added to the $5.4 billion quarterly adjustment as though they represent separate losses.

The quarterly figure forms part of the broader nine-month development.

That distinction is essential to accurate reporting.

The accounting consequences do not end there

Shell explains that the remeasurement of its vessel leases creates a corresponding increase in right-of-use assets.

Those assets are then depreciated prospectively over the remaining lease terms.

This means the adjustment can influence future reported depreciation expenses.

However, the ultimate economic impact will depend partly on how the relevant shipping indices evolve and what payments become due under the contracts.

If market conditions normalise, subsequent accounting measurements may change.

It would therefore be misleading to describe the entire $7.684 billion as a permanent realised financial loss.

Equally, it would be wrong to dismiss the disclosure as meaningless simply because it is non-cash.

The adjustment reflects real contractual exposure to volatile market conditions, measured according to the applicable accounting framework.

Shareholders are entitled to understand that exposure and the assumptions used to calculate it.

Profits on one side, shipping volatility on the other

The shipping disclosure presents a striking contrast with Shell’s headline financial performance.

For the third quarter of 2026, Shell reported:

Financial measure Q3 2026 Adjusted earnings $10.814 billion Income attributable to shareholders $12.057 billion Cash flow from operations $21.043 billion Free cash flow $16.322 billion Net debt at quarter-end $39.733 billion New share-buyback programme $5 billion

Shell’s performance was supported by strong refining margins and substantial cash generation.

But the Middle East conflict has not simply created favourable conditions.

It has also disrupted energy production, affected shipping markets and increased financial volatility.

Shell’s figures show how the same geopolitical environment can produce very different effects across the business.

Higher hydrocarbon prices and refining margins may support earnings, while increased shipping costs and contractual exposures create additional pressures.

The net consequences cannot be determined from any single accounting adjustment.

That is why the shipping disclosure matters.

It provides a fuller picture of the risks accompanying Shell’s extraordinary profitability.

The link with our investigation into executive rewards

On 30 October, this website published an investigation examining Greenpeace’s estimate that Shell chief executive Wael Sawan had experienced a £4.7 million increase in the value of his shareholding during the Iran conflict.

That article also documented Sawan’s earlier disposal of 40,000 Shell shares for approximately €1.49 million, using Shell’s own regulatory notification.

The shipping disclosure adds another important dimension to the financial story.

It demonstrates why the consequences of geopolitical conflict cannot simply be categorised as a windfall for every part of an oil company’s operations.

Shareholder valuations, realised executive transactions, operating earnings, future shipping obligations and non-cash accounting adjustments are different financial measures.

Each must be assessed on its own terms.

The company’s profitability is real.

So is the volatility reflected in its shipping-lease calculations.

The challenge is to understand how those developments interact without overstating the evidence.

What about Shell’s exposure to LNG shipping?

Shipping is particularly important to Shell’s Integrated Gas business.

Liquefied natural gas must be transported using specialised vessels and supporting infrastructure.

Shell’s global LNG activities involve production, trading, transport and customer supply commitments across multiple regions.

The company has also been expanding its exposure to natural gas through major investments.

In September 2026, Shell completed its acquisition of ARC Resources, strengthening its Canadian gas portfolio.

During the same month, the company announced a final investment decision on LNG Canada Phase 2.

That project is intended to double LNG Canada’s production capacity from 14 million tonnes annually to 28 million tonnes.

These developments underscore the strategic importance of natural gas and LNG within Shell’s future portfolio.

However, Shell’s quarterly disclosure does not provide a sufficiently detailed breakdown to attribute the $7.684 billion shipping-lease adjustment exclusively to LNG carriers rather than other qualifying vessel leases.

Such a conclusion would require additional information.

What is clear is that international shipping arrangements represent an important element of Shell’s commercial and accounting exposure.

The historical perspective: energy transport and geopolitical risk

For readers of the Independent Shell Archive and The Shell Leaks Files, the latest disclosure belongs to a much longer history.

Shell’s development into a major international energy company has always depended on access to resources and the ability to transport those resources across borders.

Shipping routes, political instability, government intervention and international disputes have repeatedly influenced the company’s operations.

The historical archive documents numerous examples of Shell confronting political and commercial risk.

The Sakhalin-2 project provides one particularly significant example of the relationship between major energy investments and geopolitical power.

That history should not be confused with the present circumstances.

The 2026 shipping-lease adjustments are accounting consequences arising from freight-market conditions, not evidence of wrongdoing or a repetition of the Sakhalin controversy.

Nevertheless, both illustrate a broader reality.

International energy companies are profoundly exposed to political developments beyond their direct control.

Their financial performance cannot be understood solely through production volumes, commodity prices or headline profits.

Transport infrastructure and access to international markets are equally important.

Questions shareholders should ask

Shell’s disclosure raises several legitimate questions.

1. Which shipping arrangements are principally responsible?

What proportion of the remeasurement relates to LNG carriers, oil tankers and other vessels?

2. How long do the affected leases run?

Long-term contracts indexed to unusually high spot rates could produce accounting measurements that differ materially from eventual cash payments.

3. What is the actual cash exposure?

How does Shell expect the increase in freight-rate indices to affect payments over the remaining contractual periods?

4. How sensitive are the reported liabilities to lower shipping rates?

Would a return towards earlier freight-market conditions produce substantial downward remeasurement?

5. What are the implications for reported depreciation?

How will the adjusted right-of-use assets influence future accounting expenses?

6. How does Shell manage geopolitical shipping risk?

What contractual, operational and financial arrangements are used to limit exposure to sudden disruption?

These questions do not imply that Shell has breached accounting rules or mismanaged its shipping contracts.

They arise from the magnitude of the adjustment and the importance of the underlying exposures.

A revealing footnote in a remarkable quarter

Shell’s third-quarter financial statements contain several substantial disclosures.

They include a $2.116 billion impairment relating to a European biogas asset, an impairment reversal of $1.787 billion associated with an Integrated Gas asset, and a projected $6.4 billion non-cash charge relating to the restructuring of the company’s Dutch pension arrangements.

All three have already been examined in our recent investigations.

The shipping-lease disclosure provides another example of how significant financial developments can appear within the detailed notes rather than the headline announcements.

The $5.4 billion quarterly figure is substantial.

The $7.684 billion nine-month adjustment is even more striking.

But neither should be presented as an immediate cash loss.

The company’s own explanation establishes that the figures result from the remeasurement of index-linked vessel leases under IFRS 16, with corresponding asset adjustments.

It also acknowledges that prevailing spot rates may not accurately represent eventual payments.

That qualification is vital.

Nevertheless, the disclosure illuminates a significant source of financial volatility at a time when the global energy industry is experiencing exceptional geopolitical disruption.

Conclusion: the other side of Shell’s Iran war results

Shell’s latest financial performance demonstrates the extraordinary earning power of a global energy company operating during a period of sharply changing commodity markets.

Its shipping disclosures demonstrate something equally important.

The same international conflict associated with high refining margins and substantial profits can also produce multibillion-dollar changes in contractual liabilities.

Those changes may be accounting adjustments rather than immediate cash losses, but they are not irrelevant.

They reveal financial exposures that shareholders should understand.

The important story is not that Shell has suddenly lost $7.684 billion in cash. It has not reported such a loss.

The story is that the Iran conflict has driven shipping-market conditions severe enough to produce an enormous remeasurement of the company’s vessel-lease obligations.

For an international energy business whose operations depend on maritime transport, that is a significant disclosure.

And it is precisely the kind of information that deserves careful preservation in the historical record.

Principal sources

1. Shell plc — Third Quarter 2026 and Nine Months Unaudited Results, 29 October 2026

Official Shell quarterly financial statements

The primary source for the financial figures discussed in this article.

Of particular relevance are page 2, footnote 4, concerning the $5.4 billion non-cash shipping-lease increase, and page 33, Note 7, concerning the $7.684 billion remeasurement of index-linked vessel leases.

2. US Securities and Exchange Commission

SEC EDGAR — Shell plc company filings

Regulatory reporting archive. The third-quarter report was supplied as part of Shell’s 29 October 2026 Form 6-K filing.

3. IFRS Foundation — IFRS 16 Leases

Official IFRS 16 accounting standard overview

Background on the accounting rules governing lease liabilities and right-of-use assets.

4. Previous Independent Shell Archive reporting

Shell’s $10.8 Billion Profit Bonanza: A $2.1 Billion Biogas Write-Down as LNG Canada Gains $1.8 Billion in Value — 29 October 2026

Shell’s $6.4 Billion Pension Bombshell — 30 October 2026

Shell CEO’s Shares Gain £4.7 Million During Iran War — 30 October 2026

Editorial note: This article is based primarily on Shell plc’s third-quarter financial disclosures released on 29 October 2026. The $5.4 billion quarterly adjustment and $7.684 billion nine-month adjustment concern overlapping periods and must not be added together. Both relate to non-cash lease accounting adjustments rather than realised losses of equivalent amounts. No accounting irregularity, regulatory breach or misconduct is alleged. Shell plc is invited to provide additional explanations or factual corrections, which will be considered for publication.

Shell’s Iran War Windfall Has Another Side: SEC Filing Reveals $5.4 Billion Shipping-Lease Shock was first posted on October 31, 2026 at 11:24 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

One London council wants Shell to help pay for climate protection. Another is inviting the oil giant to move its headquarters across the Thames. The extraordinary exchange has revived memories of historic Shell-Mex House on the Strand — a building with its own place in the history of the Donovan family’s dealings with Shell.

By John Donovan — 31 October 2026

Shell plc has found itself at the centre of an unusual disagreement between two London local authorities.

In Lambeth, where Shell maintains its London headquarters on the South Bank, the Green Party-led council has publicly challenged the oil giant to contribute towards the costs of protecting local residents from climate change.

Across the River Thames, Westminster City Council’s deputy leader has responded with a rather different proposition.

If Shell feels unwelcome in Lambeth, Westminster would be delighted to have it back.

The invitation comes from Councillor Timothy Barnes, Deputy Leader of Westminster City Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Planning, in an open letter addressed to Shell chief executive Wael Sawan.

Published by The Critic on 30 October 2026, the letter offers to assist Shell with relocating to Westminster and argues that successful businesses should be welcomed for the employment, investment and economic activity they generate.

The exchange highlights contrasting approaches to corporate responsibility, local government finance and the treatment of major international businesses.

It also revives a fascinating chapter of Shell’s London history.

Lambeth challenges Shell over climate funding

As we reported on 24 October, Lambeth Council has been asking Shell to help finance measures to protect local communities against the effects of climate change.

Deputy council leader Ciara Alleyne featured in a public appeal outside Shell Centre, the company’s London headquarters near Waterloo.

The campaign included an attempted visit to Shell’s offices, although there was no evidence that a meeting had been arranged or that Shell’s senior management had refused a formal invitation to discuss the issue.

Lambeth’s argument is that companies associated with substantial greenhouse gas emissions should contribute to the costs of protecting communities from climate impacts.

Possible initiatives include measures addressing extreme heat and improving local climate resilience.

The council has highlighted Shell’s substantial profitability and its contribution to global emissions.

However, as our earlier investigation explained, the precise amount being requested, the proposed method of calculation and the legal or voluntary basis of any contribution remain important unanswered questions.

Lambeth’s appeal is a political and environmental initiative, not an established tax liability or binding financial obligation.

That distinction is central to the disagreement now emerging.

Westminster enters the argument

Councillor Barnes has taken issue with Lambeth’s approach.

In his open letter to Sawan, he suggests that Westminster would offer Shell a more welcoming business environment.

He argues that companies already contribute to their surrounding communities through employment, supply chains, local expenditure and existing taxation.

In his view, a council should not treat the worldwide commercial activities of a company as creating an additional financial obligation merely because its headquarters happen to be located within the borough.

Barnes acknowledges that businesses should meet their tax obligations and be held accountable for wrongdoing.

He also accepts that environmental costs should be addressed through appropriate legislation and regulation.

His objection concerns what he regards as public pressure for an additional voluntary payment tied to Shell’s geographical presence.

The letter presents Westminster as an attractive alternative location for an international company of Shell’s scale.

Barnes points to the borough’s concentration of major businesses, financial institutions and commercial headquarters.

He also refers to Westminster’s economic output and the substantial business-rate revenues collected within the borough.

His message is unmistakable.

Rather than encouraging Shell to contribute more money to local climate initiatives, Westminster is offering to discuss how the company might bring additional employment and investment into its jurisdiction.

The invitation appears to have been made publicly through The Critic. We have identified no evidence that Shell requested relocation assistance or that formal negotiations have begun.

The remarkable reference to Shell-Mex House

Perhaps the most interesting passage in Barnes’s letter concerns Shell’s historical association with Westminster.

He reminds Sawan of Shell-Mex House on the Strand, overlooking the Thames.

It is a particularly appropriate reference.

The immense Art Deco building, completed in 1932, became one of the most recognisable symbols of Shell’s corporate presence in London.

With its imposing façade and enormous clock overlooking the river, Shell-Mex House represented the wealth, commercial influence and prestige of the British petroleum industry.

The building was originally associated with Shell-Mex and BP, reflecting the historical relationship between the two companies’ British marketing operations.

It later remained associated with Shell before the company’s presence there came to an end.

Today, the property is known as Eighty Strand.

The building is Grade II listed, and its architectural significance remains recognised independently of the company’s corporate history.

For Westminster’s deputy leader, it provides an obvious reminder that Shell’s connection with the borough extends back generations.

For the present writer, however, Shell-Mex House has an additional personal significance.

A personal recollection: my visits to Shell-Mex House

Long before the present dispute between Lambeth and Westminster, I was a regular and welcome visitor to Shell-Mex House.

During the years when my father, Alfred Donovan, and I were involved in providing promotional ideas and services to Shell through our company, Don Marketing, we developed extensive commercial relationships with the oil group.

Our association with Shell began in the early 1980s and continued for many years.

The subsequent disputes and litigation arising from those relationships are extensively documented in the Donovan–Shell historical archive.

But it is worth remembering that the relationship did not begin in conflict.

For many years, we worked with Shell, presented promotional ideas and enjoyed access to people within its organisation.

My recollections of visiting Shell-Mex House belong to that earlier period.

It is therefore rather striking to see the building return to the headlines through an invitation to Shell to re-establish its presence in Westminster.

The corporate world represented by Shell-Mex House was very different from the Shell of today.

Yet the company’s historical identity remains inseparable from its buildings, commercial relationships and institutional memory.

Those connections deserve preservation alongside the later controversies.

From Shell-Mex House to Shell Centre

Shell’s London corporate history encompasses both sides of the Thames.

Shell-Mex House became a prominent landmark in Westminster, while Shell Centre established the company’s enduring association with the South Bank in Lambeth.

The two buildings reflect different periods in the development of Shell’s British operations.

They also illustrate the company’s substantial physical presence in London over many decades.

Shell Centre, close to the London Eye and Waterloo, became one of the capital’s most recognisable corporate headquarters.

The site has undergone considerable redevelopment, but its association with Shell remains central to its identity.

The present disagreement is therefore not simply about whether one council would welcome a new office tenant.

It concerns a company whose activities have helped shape London’s commercial geography for generations.

That history adds weight to Barnes’s invitation, even if the prospect of a move currently remains hypothetical.

Two councils, two different arguments

The competing positions deserve to be considered on their merits.

Lambeth’s approach emphasises climate responsibility.

Its argument is that local communities face increasingly expensive adaptation requirements and that major fossil-fuel businesses should help meet the associated costs.

Westminster’s approach emphasises investment, employment and the economic contribution of major companies.

Its argument is that councils should encourage successful businesses to establish and expand operations rather than expose them to additional financial demands based simply on where their offices are located.

Neither position automatically resolves the underlying questions.

A council’s request for a voluntary contribution is not necessarily equivalent to imposing a tax.

Equally, the presence of a profitable multinational business within a borough does not automatically establish a legal obligation to finance particular local programmes.

There is also a distinction between a company’s international responsibility for environmental impacts and its relationship with the local authority hosting its headquarters.

Those questions involve policy, taxation, public finance and corporate responsibility.

They cannot be settled solely through competing political statements.

Could Shell really move?

At present, there is no indication that Shell has decided to relocate its London headquarters.

Barnes has made an invitation, not announced an agreement.

A headquarters move by a company of Shell’s size would involve substantial practical and financial considerations.

These might include property arrangements, employee requirements, operational needs and the advantages or disadvantages of remaining at its existing location.

There is no evidence that Shell is undertaking such an assessment in response to Lambeth’s appeal.

Nor should Westminster’s expression of interest be confused with a formal corporate proposal.

For now, the story is principally about the competing messages being directed towards one of Britain’s largest companies.

Nevertheless, an actual response from Shell could turn the exchange into a more substantial development.

What should Shell say?

Shell may prefer not to become involved in a public disagreement between two London councils.

But several legitimate questions arise.

Has Lambeth submitted a formal request for a contribution to its climate resilience programme?

Has Shell responded, or does it intend to discuss the proposal?

Has Westminster approached the company through official channels beyond Barnes’s published letter?

Would Shell consider any change to its London property arrangements?

And what, if any, voluntary contributions does Shell already make towards community or environmental initiatives in the areas where it maintains major offices?

Answers would help distinguish political publicity from substantive commercial developments.

The value of the historical record

For readers of the Independent Shell Archive and The Shell Leaks Files, the story has an importance extending beyond local politics.

The archive documents Shell’s history through corporate records, correspondence, commercial disputes, litigation and contemporary reporting.

But corporate history also includes the people and places associated with a company over time.

Shell-Mex House is one such place.

My own recollection of being a regular visitor provides a small personal connection to that wider history.

The building represents an earlier era when the relationship between Don Marketing and Shell was cooperative, long before the disagreements that would eventually become the subject of extensive legal proceedings and public scrutiny.

Preserving that earlier history is just as important as documenting the disputes that followed.

An accurate historical record should encompass the full development of a relationship, not only its most contentious chapters.

But Could Shell’s Next Destination Be New York?

There is a further irony in the disagreement between Lambeth and Westminster.

While two London councils adopt contrasting positions towards Shell’s presence in the capital, the company has previously considered a far more dramatic change: moving its principal stock-market listing from London to New York.

In February 2023, the Financial Times reported that senior Shell executives had discussed the possibility of relocating both the company’s headquarters and its stock-market listing to the United States.

In April 2024, Reuters reported that Shell chief executive Wael Sawan was considering all available options to address the valuation gap between Shell and American competitors such as ExxonMobil and Chevron.

Former Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden also publicly expressed concern that Shell was undervalued by comparison with its American rivals.

In January 2025, Sawan confirmed that Shell continued to review its options, although a relocation was not then under active discussion.

There is an important distinction between moving a company’s principal stock-market listing and relocating its corporate headquarters. One does not necessarily require the other.

Nor is there presently verified evidence that Shell has decided to pursue either course.

Nevertheless, the history adds an intriguing dimension to Westminster’s invitation.

While Westminster offers Shell a welcome return across the Thames, the more consequential question may ultimately be whether Shell wishes to retain London as the principal financial home of the company at all.

For a business that has already transferred its corporate headquarters from the Netherlands to Britain, the possibility of another major change cannot simply be dismissed.

But until Shell announces a decision, New York remains a previously considered option — not an established destination.

Supporting sources

Reuters, 8 April 2024 — Shell considers options including New York listing

Associated Press, 30 January 2025 — Shell continues reviewing listing options

 

An unexpected invitation across the Thames

The present controversy began with Lambeth asking Shell to contribute towards climate resilience.

It has now produced a public invitation from Westminster to consider moving its headquarters.

The two councils are approaching the same company from markedly different perspectives.

One emphasises environmental costs and corporate responsibility.

The other emphasises economic activity and the benefits of attracting international business.

Whether Shell will respond remains to be seen.

But Barnes’s reference to Shell-Mex House gives the exchange an unexpected historical dimension.

For someone who once visited that building regularly on friendly commercial business, the invitation brings back memories of an earlier Shell.

Half a century of corporate change has not erased Shell’s connection with the Strand.

And it is perhaps fitting that, at a moment when one London council is challenging Shell over its responsibilities, another is reminding the company that it would still be welcome on the opposite side of the river.

Principal sources and further reading

The Critic — 30 October 2026

Shell Would Be Welcome in Westminster — Councillor Timothy Barnes

The original open letter addressed to Shell chief executive Wael Sawan. This is the principal source for Westminster’s invitation and Councillor Barnes’s stated arguments.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com — 24 October 2026

Lambeth Puts Shell Under Pressure to Help Pay for Climate Protection

Our earlier report covering Lambeth Council’s climate-funding appeal and the questions surrounding its proposed financial contribution.

Lambeth Council — Official statement, 21 October 2026

Lambeth Council — Official news and announcements

Background on the council’s climate-resilience priorities, including its announced 2027 Climate Emergency Summit.

Historic England

National Heritage List for England — Shell-Mex House, List Entry 1236752

Official heritage record identifying Shell-Mex House as a Grade II listed historic building.

Independent Shell Archive

The Donovan–Shell Historical Archive

Extensive documentary record covering the commercial relationships between Don Marketing and Shell, subsequent disputes, litigation and associated correspondence.

Editorial note: Councillor Timothy Barnes’s invitation is a published political statement, not evidence that Shell intends to relocate. The arguments attributed to Lambeth and Westminster reflect their respective public positions. The personal recollection of visits to Shell-Mex House is the author’s firsthand account and should not be confused with an independently documented corporate record. Shell plc and both councils are invited to provide factual corrections or further comment.

Shell Caught Between Two London Councils: Lambeth Wants Climate Funding, Westminster Offers a Welcome — and a Return to Shell-Mex House was first posted on October 31, 2026 at 11:13 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

The last two years have been a rough going for farmers and ranchers in the U.S. Rollbacks to several Department of Agriculture programs have cut available funding and left producers in the dark. Last year, farm groups sued the federal agency after it deleted multiple webpages that mentioned climate change, including some with critical information for planning around extreme weather. (Early this year, the ag department agreed to restore the webpages in a settlement.) Just this month, the USDA cut solar from a popular renewable energy grant program and dealt another setback to farmers who wish to lower their utility bills and pad their incomes by installing solar panels on their land. 

Meanwhile, cattle ranchers in the U.S. have been frustrated by high beef prices. The average price of ground beef has been steadily climbing since the COVID-19 pandemic, reaching new records in the last two years. Persistent droughts contributing to historically low herd sizes have also added to ranchers’ plight. And President Donald Trump’s various moves to supposedly help lower the price of beef — such as importing more beef from abroad — haven’t helped. Ranchers even say these trade deals undercut their business model. 

So heading into the midterm elections, many agricultural producers, once a critical part of Trump’s base, have been clear that they’re aggravated by and disagree with the president. In an apparent attempt to appease these constituents, the USDA has very recently unlocked billions of dollars in support for farmers, as well as additional money for ranchers.

Whether it’s enough to smooth over the tension that farmers and ranchers are feeling remains to be seen. The president of the Iowa Farmers Union, Aaron Lehman, said that U.S. farmers “have needed help for months” and “never should have been put in this position.” 

The new funding also underlines the administration’s commitment to supporting fossil fuels, even as the use of these energy sources emit greenhouse gases that further warm the planet. On October 19, the president announced $8 billion would be made available to help farmers make up money they lost due to high diesel prices. 

Read Next Hurricane Helene haunts the midterms in North Carolina Katie Myers

The process through which farmers apply for and receive said funding is still unclear. In a press release, the ag department stated it would provide “simple, proportional support to producers” for part of the losses they incurred during the 2026 crop year. Responding to a request for more details from Grist, a USDA representative said, “President Trump has been the most pro-farmer president in our nation’s history, and the Harvest Fuel Relief Program is the latest action to deliver for them. As USDA works to implement the program, we are actively reviewing all available data to determine payments which are expected to be finalized and processed soon.” 

Farmers and ranchers are both incredibly reliant on diesel as a fuel source. Much of the equipment that they use — like tractors, combines, and trucks for moving crops or livestock from one place to another — run on diesel. But diesel prices have been increasing due to the Iran war, which has led to significant supply chain disruptions. A Democrat-led congressional report found that U.S. farmers are on track to spend an additional $2.4 billion on diesel specifically due to Trump’s war in Iran. 

The timing of Trump’s $8 billion bailout program for farmers who lost money due to high diesel prices is also ironic, given that the ag department just made it harder for farmers to switch to more efficient energy sources like solar and wind. 

Mike Lavender, the policy director of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, called these farmer payments “a failing solution” in a statement. The reality is, he said, that “countless farms nationwide remain in crisis: Farm bankruptcies hit a six-year high this spring, and farmers are carrying heavier debt loads and are more pessimistic about their future.” 

On October 26, just over a week before Election Day, the USDA also announced $57 million in funding specifically for ranchers. The funding will help independent producers expand their meat-processing capacity, according to the department’s press release. 

Additional measures to help agricultural producers boost their bottom line include an announcement yesterday that the USDA will purchase nearly $500 million in agricultural commodities from U.S. producers. 

These bailout programs are also coming at a time when the nation’s foremost agricultural policy remains in limbo. The last farm bill, a legislative package that once upon a time was renewed every five years and controls everything from crop insurance to conservation programs, was passed in 2018. Currently, competing versions of a new farm bill sit in the House of Representatives and the Senate, but advocates say much of the future of the bill hinges on the upcoming midterm elections. For farmers, this period of time represents how the Trump administration is trying to appeal to their needs without a guiding vision for the future. 

toolTips('.classtoolTips3','Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump cut funding for farmers — then unlocked billions for them before Election Day on Oct 31, 2026.

On a warm October morning, I joined biologist Kevin Manajerro and researcher Melanie Davis to load the truck with field gear before heading to a survey site overlooking the Salton Sea. The...

The grid is changing rapidly, battery storage durations are getting longer, and chemistries are changing too.

The post Big battery durations are headed to double figures, and their chemistries are changing – again appeared first on Renew Economy.

When we vote YES, together we can create clean energy, green jobs, and climate resilience for all Eugenians.

Source

Allowing balcony or plug in solar will make it easier to access cheaper, cleaner electricity without owning the roof.

The post Cheaper power from the balcony: Plug-in solar and batteries could open the energy transition to renters.  appeared first on Renew Economy.

Damn but we're tired of a racist, petty, what-about-me child in the White House. For solace: He's hopefully heading for the losingest fail of his long loser's life - and maybe a jail cell please? - and there are many, many people just as tired, with good shticks to match. This week saw some truly stellar trolling from, in turn, Obama, Norway and a heroic guy in South Carolina who managed to foist the Jonestown Massacre on the latest Nazi rally. Well done, all.

There's nothing like hearing Obama at his recent campaign appearances - in Georgia, Michigan, Ohio - to be starkly reminded there are no grown-ups left in the fake-gold-encrusted room of the current regime. Yes we know: he was seriously flawed, and failed to achieve much of what he promised. Still, it was bracing to see him smoothly obliterate the mad child-king, first with his crack about Saddam's Cheesecake Factory, then by skewering a president (sic) who spends his time "doing arts and crafts" in the Oval Office and who, after his just critiques of war, inflation, apocalyptic decline and "unprecedented corruption" chose to "mobilize a whole government response" not to those issues, but to a cheesecake joke: "This is what I mean. These are not serious people."

Next was Norway's gleeful response to Trump's petulant whining (still) about the Nobel prize won by "a woman nobody ever heard of" - Navanetham Pillay, a renowned South African jurist who's spent decades seeking accountability for war crimes, sexual violence and genocide from Rwanda to Gaza at the ICC and as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights - and not to him, who's "settled 8 (imaginary) wars and I've got 2 more coming." "'What about me?'" he bleated in Michigan of the "disgraceful" choice. "So I’m not in love with Norway. I don't want anybody from Norway. Frankly, Norway sucks. Norway has become a shithouse country, actually.” Thus did a sulky illiterate toddler toss (blond!) Norway in with Haiti, Libya, Somalia, mangling the "shithole" epithet en route.

Norwegian officials, evidently grown-ups, took the picayune insult and ran with it. First, they calmly noted Trump "knows very well" the prize isn't awarded by the government but by an independent Nobel committee. "We have reminded him of that, in case anyone is wondering," said Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide. Then he took pity on the wretched child. "The president is currently in the midst of an election campaign that perhaps isn't going very well for his party," he calmly added. "That leads him to say a lot of things." At home, Bernie Sanders slammed an "insane" babysitting task. "Norway is one of the most democratic and prosperous countries on earth. Free college, strong democracy, free press," he declared. "We have a mentally unbalanced president."

Norway, with just 5.6 million people, likewise boasts one of the world's highest gross national incomes and top ratings for education and life expectancy, its largest sovereign wealth fund, and for the 10th consecutive year first place in the World Press Freedom index. It also has some of the world's most dazzling landscapes - rugged fjords, thunderous waterfalls, sweeping vistas, colossal mountains along 18 designated Scenic Routes - along with, its tourism bureau happily brags, "some of the world's most spectacular toilets," many of them sleek, award-winning "architectural masterpieces" that combine minimalist designs with breathtaking views. "These toilets are worth a visit," they crow, "both when you really have to go - and when you don’t.”

"Yes, Donald, we are a 'shithouse country,'" proudly proclaims the Norwegian Public Roads Administration, taking Michelle Obama's famous "when they go low" approach under the news headline, "Straight Into the Toilet." Norway is, after all, "the home of the outhouse," they note, which many residents connect to the country's hardy traditions and longtime "cabin culture." Visit Norway, its official tourism board, went further, showcasing its striking "lovely lavatories." "We've heard some chatter about a 'shithouse country.' Well, what can we say? Norway makes shit houses great again!," they wrote, urging tourists to "take your time and enjoy. Yes, Norway has some spectacular scenery. It just happens to have some pretty spectacular toilets, too. With love, Visit Norway."

The site highlights the wave-shaped Ureddplassen toilet on the coast of Helgeland in the north, hailed by designers as the most scenic restroom in the world. Also the solar-powered bog at the Utsikten viewpoint, the elegant Tungeneset loo - “Looks pretty good under the Northern Lights” - and, for "the bully in kindergarten,” the triangular “Golden Toilet,” or “Gulldassen,” at Ersfjordstranda on Senja island, recently paired with a glamorous new silver service building: "If you are a mere mortal like us and can’t afford a gold-plated toilet seat, the Golden loo (on) Senja is the next best thing.” Coming soon: a forest-themed wooden loo made from over 60 trees "for the pit stop of your life." Visit Norway on the "immense" response: "The world needs a little laugh."

Finally, bravely facing off against the horrors of a vengeful, demented, badly-accordion-playing rapist implausibly in power comes "absolute legend" and hero without a cape Tom Hoyle, 57, a South Carolina graphics designer in a bushy beard, baseball cap and t-shirt for heavy metal band Death: "I look like you, but I'm not like you," he says of fortuitously blending into a MAGA mob. "I'm the vampire during the day." A longtime Republican until he wasn't, he runs MadPark Designs, which in recent dark days has done screen printing and embroidery for No Kings rallies, George Floyd protests, LGBTQ-led music org We Rock Charlotte etc. Now, MadPark is "being bombarded by 5-star reviews" thanks to Hoyle's unplanned "25 seconds of fame" at his local Nazi rally.

The backstory: Hoyle has hated Trump since his infamous 1980s attack on the Central Park Five, now Exonerated Five - "I decided, 'You're dead to me, and hopefully to everybody else'" - but what "pushed me over the edge" this week was the GOP calling his shop (wait, they do that?) to urge him to attend Friday's rally for clueless Darline Graham. "We despise that," he says, "so we thought we'd turn the tables on them, do something goofy and make some good trouble," maybe some friendly neighborhood heckling. He slipped in through security by "talking in circles" about heavy metal and his shirt: "Death is the most hardcore death metal. You see somebody in a Death shirt and you know they're interested in humanity." He didn't expect what came next: a Fox mike in his face.

His now-viral wisecrack (see below) was entirely off the cuff, though he recalled seeing memes comparing MAGA to 1978's gruesome Jonestown Massacre, a mass murder/suicide in Guyana wherein over 900 glassy-eyed disciples of Jim Jones drank cyanide-laced Kool-Aid to fulfill "a madman’s fever dream." The joke on the difference between Trump and Jones: Trump would charge you for the Kool-Aid before you died. When the Fox guy asked why Hoyle was here, he had his punchline. As he headed to the exit and Secret Service approached, he innocently asked if this was about the concession stand; alarmed, they asked what he'd done there. "Nothing," he said, "but it was closed super early and I was starving." Then he kept walking. He'd like to thank Billy Crystal for his epic timing. We'd like to thank him for his ray of light.

"The devil…the prowde spirite…cannot endure to be mocked.” ― Thomas More

- YouTube www.youtube.com

'The window of opportunity to avoid a potentially catastrophic future is rapidly closing'

Source

Greenpeace says four leading oil executives have enjoyed nearly £19 million in increased shareholding value during the Iran conflict. Shell chief executive Wael Sawan accounts for more than £4.7 million of that estimate. But the most revealing evidence comes from Shell’s own regulatory disclosures, which confirm a substantial share disposal in May 2026.

By John Donovan — 30 October 2026

As the Iran conflict continues to disrupt international energy markets, new research by Greenpeace UK has drawn attention to the personal financial benefits experienced by some of the world’s most senior oil executives.

According to the environmental organisation, the shareholdings of four major oil-company chief executives increased in value by nearly £19 million between late February and 28 October 2026.

Among them is Shell plc chief executive Wael Sawan.

Greenpeace estimates that the value of his Shell shareholding increased by more than £4.7 million over the period examined.

Separately, Shell’s own regulatory disclosures confirm that Sawan sold 40,000 ordinary shares on 22 May 2026, generating gross proceeds of €1,486,804.20 — approximately £1.3 million at the exchange rate used in Greenpeace’s reporting.

The timing has attracted attention because the transaction occurred during the Iran conflict and shortly before a reported suggestion by US President Donald Trump that a potential agreement with Iran had largely been negotiated.

There is, however, an important distinction between reporting the timing of a transaction and alleging improper conduct.

Neither Greenpeace’s analysis nor Shell’s regulatory notification establishes that Sawan possessed privileged information, anticipated a diplomatic announcement or breached securities regulations.

What the evidence does establish is a substantial increase in the reported value of executive shareholdings during an extraordinary period for international energy markets.

It also raises legitimate questions about the relationship between geopolitical disruption, shareholder returns and executive remuneration.

Greenpeace identifies nearly £19 million in executive shareholding gains

Greenpeace published its findings on 30 October 2026.

The organisation examined publicly available financial records relating to the chief executives of Shell, TotalEnergies, Harbour Energy and Equinor.

Its calculations cover the period between 27 February and 28 October 2026, using publicly disclosed shareholdings and closing market prices.

The resulting estimates are substantial.

Chief executive Company Estimated increase in shareholding value Patrick Pouyanné TotalEnergies £8.4 million Linda Cook Harbour Energy £4.8 million Wael Sawan Shell £4.7 million Anders Opedal Equinor £1.03 million

The figures are approximate and come from Greenpeace’s analysis, rather than a common accounting measure published by the four companies.

They represent increases in the estimated market value of shareholdings, not necessarily profits realised through sales.

The research does not include executives’ salaries or other benefits.

Greenpeace also reports that the four companies’ shares outperformed their respective domestic stock-market benchmarks during the period.

According to its calculations, Shell shares rose approximately 27%, while the FTSE 100 fell around 2%.

That contrast is central to the organisation’s argument.

While higher energy prices have created financial pressures for consumers and businesses, they have also contributed to stronger valuations for major energy producers.

Shell’s own records confirm Sawan’s €1.49 million share sale

The most important Shell-specific evidence is not Greenpeace’s interpretation.

It is Shell’s own official regulatory notification.

On 22 May 2026, Shell published a Director/PDMR Shareholding announcement identifying a transaction undertaken by its chief executive.

The details were precise:

• Executive: Wael Sawan
• Transaction date: 22 May 2026
• Transaction: Disposal of ordinary Shell shares
• Number sold: 40,000
• Price per share: €37.170105
• Total proceeds: €1,486,804.20
• Transaction location: Amsterdam

The disclosure was made under the applicable UK and European market-abuse disclosure regimes and was also furnished to the US Securities and Exchange Commission through Form 6-K.

These are independently verifiable facts.

The notification establishes the date, volume and value of the transaction.

It does not explain Sawan’s personal reason for selling.

It would therefore be inappropriate to speculate that the sale was motivated by geopolitical developments or expectations about future oil prices.

Sales by company directors are not inherently suspicious.

Executives may dispose of shares for numerous legitimate reasons, including taxation, diversification, personal financial planning or other circumstances.

The regulatory disclosure is nevertheless important because it enables shareholders and the public to examine significant transactions by individuals responsible for managing major listed companies.

The timing highlighted by Greenpeace

Greenpeace places particular emphasis on the fact that Sawan’s sale took place on 22 May 2026.

The organisation notes that this was the day before President Trump reportedly suggested that a potential US–Iran agreement had largely been negotiated.

That proximity is part of Greenpeace’s narrative.

But timing alone does not demonstrate foreknowledge, unusual trading behaviour or wrongdoing.

There is no evidence in the material reviewed that Sawan traded on inside information or acted improperly.

It is also worth remembering that share transactions by senior executives take place within a regulatory framework that includes disclosure obligations and restrictions on dealing.

The proper conclusion is that the transaction merits transparent reporting, not that its timing proves misconduct.

Another Shell disclosure: 82,987 conditional performance shares

An additional regulatory announcement provides important context.

On 21 May 2026, Shell announced that Sawan had received a conditional award of 82,987 performance shares under the Shell Share Plan 2023.

The award was made on 20 May and remained subject to performance conditions determined by the company’s Remuneration Committee and the committee’s discretion.

Shell’s chief financial officer, Sinead Gorman, received a conditional award of 10,964 shares under the same arrangement.

A conditional performance-share award should not be confused with an unconditional payment or an immediate cash benefit.

The shares may become deliverable only if the relevant conditions are satisfied.

Nevertheless, the award illustrates how executive remuneration can create substantial exposure to movements in the company’s share price.

It also provides context for the debate about whether executive reward should reflect improvements in shareholder value arising partly from factors beyond management’s control.

Those factors may include commodity-price changes, exchange-rate movements and geopolitical events.

Shell’s extraordinary third-quarter profits

The Greenpeace investigation arrives immediately after Shell’s announcement of exceptionally strong financial results.

On 29 October 2026, Shell reported:

• Adjusted earnings: $10.814 billion
• Income attributable to shareholders: $12.057 billion
• Operating cash flow: $21.043 billion
• Free cash flow: $16.322 billion
• New share-buyback programme: $5 billion

Adjusted earnings were almost double the $5.432 billion recorded in the corresponding quarter of 2025.

Shell attributed its strong performance to operational delivery in a volatile commodity-price environment, including exceptionally strong refining margins.

The company also acknowledged that the Middle East conflict had disrupted some operations.

Its financial reporting identifies the effects of reduced Qatari production, while LNG Canada contributed additional volumes.

These distinctions matter.

The conflict has not been an unqualified financial benefit to Shell.

It has created both commercial opportunities and operational difficulties.

Nevertheless, the company has demonstrated an ability to generate substantial earnings during a period of major international disruption.

The connection between geopolitical events, commodity prices and corporate profits therefore deserves serious examination.

A £4.7 million increase is not the same as £4.7 million received

The distinction between unrealised shareholding appreciation and money received from a sale is essential.

Greenpeace’s estimate that Sawan’s shares gained more than £4.7 million in value does not mean that he received that amount in cash.

The estimated gain reflects changes in the market valuation of his holdings over the research period, using Greenpeace’s methodology.

By contrast, the €1.486 million share disposal recorded by Shell represents a completed transaction.

Even that figure is gross proceeds, not necessarily Sawan’s net personal profit after acquisition costs, taxes or other relevant considerations.

The two figures should not simply be added together and described as a £6 million personal profit.

That would risk counting different financial concepts as though they were equivalent.

The distinction is particularly important when reporting on executive remuneration.

Clear evidence is more persuasive than exaggerated arithmetic.

Greenpeace demands additional fossil-fuel taxation

Greenpeace argues that the findings reinforce the case for additional taxation of fossil-fuel companies.

The organisation points to the financial pressures experienced by households and businesses when international oil and gas prices rise.

Its campaign position is that additional revenues from the fossil-fuel sector should help finance clean-energy investment and measures addressing climate-related damage.

Critics of additional windfall taxation, however, argue that poorly designed taxes can discourage investment, reduce future energy production and create uncertainty for projects involving significant long-term capital expenditure.

Those competing arguments are matters of public policy.

The Greenpeace research does not, by itself, establish which tax arrangements would achieve the best economic or environmental outcome.

It does provide evidence relevant to the wider debate about who benefits financially during periods of disruption to energy markets.

What should Shell shareholders ask?

The more immediate question for Shell shareholders concerns executive incentives and corporate governance.

Large listed companies commonly use shares and performance-based awards to align management interests with those of shareholders.

The principle is understandable.

If shareholders benefit from stronger performance, senior executives may also receive higher rewards.

But the design of such arrangements can produce complicated outcomes when share prices rise for reasons that management did not directly create.

An oil executive may benefit from higher commodity prices caused by geopolitical disruption even if the underlying improvement in shareholder returns does not result primarily from superior managerial decisions.

Equally, management may deserve recognition for protecting operations, maintaining cash generation and responding effectively to difficult market conditions.

The challenge for remuneration committees is to distinguish these influences.

For Shell, several questions arise.

First, how does the Remuneration Committee assess the contribution of management performance relative to movements in global oil and gas prices?

Second, how are exceptional geopolitical events considered when evaluating long-term incentive outcomes?

Third, what proportion of executive share awards is linked to operational, financial and energy-transition objectives?

Fourth, how does Shell ensure that incentives encourage decisions in the company’s long-term interests rather than simply rewarding short-term increases in market valuation?

Finally, what information is available to shareholders about the circumstances and applicable controls surrounding major executive share disposals?

These are questions of transparency and accountability, not allegations of misconduct.

Our archive reported Sawan’s share sale months ago

There is an important historical dimension to this story.

On 11 September 2026, royaldutchshellplc.com published:

Shell’s Upstream Boss Cashes In as the Oil-and-Gas Strategy Pays Off

That article examined share transactions involving Shell’s senior management and specifically identified Sawan’s 22 May disposal.

It recorded the same 40,000-share transaction and €1,486,804.20 proceeds now highlighted by Greenpeace.

The earlier article also made clear that the disclosure did not suggest improper conduct.

This is a useful example of the value of maintaining a searchable historical archive.

Today’s Greenpeace investigation introduces a broader calculation of executive shareholding gains during the Iran conflict.

But the underlying Shell share sale was already part of the public regulatory record and had already been examined by this website.

The distinction between an established historical fact and a new interpretation of that fact is important.

It helps prevent the public record from being distorted by the excitement surrounding a newly published campaign or news report.

The Shell Leaks Files perspective

The Independent Shell Archive and The Shell Leaks Files have repeatedly examined the relationship between corporate decision-making, financial rewards, public representations and shareholder accountability.

Historical internal communications and contemporaneous records demonstrate the importance of preserving original evidence.

That principle applies equally to modern regulatory disclosures.

Executive share transactions, remuneration awards, financial results and shareholder distributions form part of the permanent documentary record of how Shell is governed.

The objective is not to assume wrongdoing whenever a senior executive receives a substantial financial benefit.

It is to establish what happened, examine what the company disclosed and assess whether the available evidence supports the claims made about it.

The present case illustrates why that approach matters.

Greenpeace has published a campaigning interpretation of the financial benefits experienced by oil executives during a period of geopolitical instability.

Shell’s regulatory announcements provide independent evidence of Sawan’s share disposal and conditional performance-share award.

Shell’s quarterly results provide the financial context.

Together, those sources support a substantial story about executive remuneration and corporate accountability.

They do not establish improper trading.

A question of reward, responsibility and disclosure

The latest disclosures present a striking picture.

Shell has reported more than $10.8 billion in quarterly adjusted earnings.

Its chief executive has experienced an estimated £4.7 million increase in the value of his shareholding during the Iran conflict, according to Greenpeace.

The company’s own records establish that he sold shares worth almost €1.5 million in May.

And Shell has authorised another $5 billion in share repurchases.

None of these events is inherently improper.

They do, however, illustrate the scale of the financial interests involved when a major energy company operates in markets profoundly influenced by international conflict.

For shareholders, the central issue is whether executive incentives appropriately reward management performance and sustainable long-term value creation.

For the wider public, it is reasonable to ask how the benefits and costs of energy-market disruption are distributed.

The evidence does not justify accusing Shell’s chief executive of wrongdoing. It does justify asking whether executive reward arrangements sufficiently distinguish management achievement from the financial effects of global crises.

That is the question worth putting to Shell.

And it is one the company’s own regulatory disclosures help bring into focus.

Principal sources

1. Greenpeace UK — 30 October 2026

North Sea Oil Bosses Enjoy £19 Million Personal Windfall Since Outbreak of Iran War

Original Greenpeace investigation providing the estimated £19 million combined shareholding appreciation and the £4.7 million estimate relating to Wael Sawan.

Greenpeace — Oil Majors Share Gains Methodology, 28 October 2026

Supporting methodology supplied by Greenpeace. Its calculations and assumptions should be treated as the organisation’s estimates.

2. Shell plc — Official regulatory disclosure, 22 May 2026

Director/PDMR Shareholding — Wael Sawan

Primary corporate evidence confirming the sale of 40,000 ordinary shares for €1,486,804.20.

Shell plc — Form 6-K, 22 May 2026

The shareholding notification furnished to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

3. Shell plc — Official regulatory disclosure, 21 May 2026

Director/PDMR Shareholding — Conditional Performance Share Awards

Primary evidence recording the conditional award of 82,987 performance shares to Wael Sawan.

4. Shell plc — 29 October 2026

Third Quarter 2026 and Nine Months Unaudited Results

Primary source for Shell’s quarterly adjusted earnings, cash flow, shareholder distributions and business performance.

5. Previous Independent Shell Archive reporting

Shell’s Upstream Boss Cashes In as the Oil-and-Gas Strategy Pays Off — 11 September 2026

Previous coverage confirming that Sawan’s May share disposal was already documented by this website.

Shell’s $10.8 Billion Profit Bonanza: A $2.1 Billion Biogas Write-Down as LNG Canada Gains $1.8 Billion in Value — 29 October 2026

Our detailed examination of Shell’s latest quarterly financial disclosures.

Editorial note: This article distinguishes Greenpeace’s estimates and campaigning claims from the financial transactions and other information confirmed in Shell’s official disclosures. An increase in the market value of a shareholding is not equivalent to a realised cash gain. A share disposal is not evidence of insider dealing or other misconduct. No such allegation is made against Wael Sawan. Shell plc is invited to provide any factual correction or explanation it wishes to place on the record.

Shell CEO’s Shares Gain £4.7 Million During Iran War — Regulatory Filing Confirms €1.49 Million Share Sale as Oil Giant Reports $10.8 Billion Profits was first posted on October 30, 2026 at 8:22 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 conditions were perfect: sunny with a few clouds, and warm, but not oppressively so. A group of familiar faces stood around me on the red brick patio of the Richardson Bay Audubon Center’s...

If you’ve been thinking about replacing part of your lawn, the biggest question is usually: Where do I even start?A good place to begin is by shifting how you think about your yard. Instead of...

Where the dreams of our ancestors meet the memories of our descendants: Reflections on commoning, abolition and reparations By Alison Chopel Introduction There are two currents in the US-based racial justice movement that I am committed to which seem, at surface, to stretch their attention in different temporal directions: reparations or reparative justice and abolitionism. Reparations activists and scholars observe that to move toward a less violent society that can truly break from the ho…

WEAVING ALTERNATIVES #21: A periodical of the Global Tapestry of Alternatives Weaving Economies for Life Solidarity Economy, Commons, Care and Pluriversal Futures November 2026 Editorial Note Solidarity Economy: A Historical Overview Melanie E L Bush and Nokuthula HlabanganeAlternativesAlternativesWeavers

Clothing swaps are a fun, free way to keep our clothing in use for longer, reduce waste and push back on the pressure we all feel to buy new stuff during the holiday season.

Who Tends the Fire? and The Arithmetic of Fire By Dr Lebohang Liepollo Pheko Cooling the Flames Without Extinguishing the Fire Who Tends the Fire? I. The economies that consume us They told us to cool the flames while they were still setting the world alight.

A 647-mile tars sands crude oil pipeline is proposed for eastern Montana and opportunities to stop the dangerous Bridger Pipeline Project are coming. In this webinar from October 29, MEIC and our partners covered what you need to know about the proposed pipeline and how we can push back. Earthjustice legal expert Lars Phillips, Dr. …

The post Webinar Recording: Bridger Pipeline Project appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

On a sunny afternoon in late October, a juvenile Bald Eagle soared back into Florida skies. State Senator Jennifer Bradley was on hand to release the eagle, and a crowd made up of homeschool...

OCT. 30, 2026

We’re excited to share that Clean Air Council was named Activist of the Year at the 2026 SustainPHL Awards!

This annual event, hosted Oct. 29 by Green Philly, celebrates the people and organizations who work to make the Philadelphia region healthier and more sustainable.

We’re grateful for this recognition, but environmental advocacy is a collective effort. So much of what we do depends on the communities, our members, funders, volunteers, grassroots groups, and partner organizations who work alongside us every day

We also want to give a special shout-out to Elaine Wells, a member of Clean Air Council’s Board of Directors, who won the Environmental Justice Award for her work in connecting young people with trails, nature, and literacy.

We are proud to be part of such a dedicated environmental community. Here’s to continuing this important work in 2027 and beyond!