News Feeds

In a possibly more than averagely batshit news week, the apocalyptic clusterfuck of clowns "governing" this country just got up to some serious weirdness. As the chief clown waffled on the best way to kill us all - AI, nukes, nukes in space, forever war, hissy fits, agitprop up the wazoo - his lackeys frantically gaslit us with brain-dead pols, high T warriors and drunken sheep fuckers. No wonder Americans are said to be dreading the fall - not autumn, but the fall of democracy and civilization (sic) itself.

With Trump's approval rightly cratering but his faithful flunkies inexplicably urging us to vote like he's on the ballot - umm, okay - he's so far gone he still giddily maintains the deranged fiction we "have the greatest economy in history," we're resplendent in "a Golden Age of America," and he's all good on shamelessly, unconstitutionally banning news outlets he doesn't like - "I don't want them in my (sic) office," aka, "I’ll take 'Something a dictator would say' for $1000, Alex" - because he evidently thinks "repressive" is a compliment, devoutly to be wished. Otherwise, heading into a mid-term election that promises ("Oh please, oh please") to be a GOP rout, he's doing nothing to drag them out of the deepening holes he's dug except flailing and digging more.

Historically, inanely dazzled by nuclear power - see his "irresponsible and dangerous and frankly incompetent" burbling about the "N-word" - he's now touting the option of a shiny new Space Force military "offensive." Never mind America's 1969 moon landing assurance from "Planet Earth," "WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND"; the one relatively peaceable place in the galaxy, space-weapons free for 18 billion years, now faces possible invasion from "Mister Schlock, Trash Gordeon, Darth Hater, Puke Skyfucker." Or in the pointedly indecipherable jargon of Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, "The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action." By more "aliens"?

Back on an increasingly fragile Planet Earth, the same dangers loom amidst an Iran debacle wherein the U.S. is committing war crimes, hiding deaths and shortfalls along with damage to buildings, equipment, vehicles - one active service member: "We’re standing with our eyes closed getting punched in the face" - lying about a vital Strait of Hormuz that remains "a parking lot" and spending up to $2 billion a month despite a third House vote to end the carnage and a defiant Iran insisting it will not reopen the Strait until “the criminal Trump and bloodthirsty Netanyahu” are gone. All as the mad child-king muses publicly about his "big decision coming up. Do I want to go in and annihilate them or do I not? Anything could happen with me."

Hence another equally incoherent whiplash on the hazards of AI: From unhinged denial spewed by the master of "Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV": the only guardrail needed is "a STRONG AND SMART (high IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S. has that, in spades!" - to tentative hedging - a supposed concept of a plan to create an AI Czar - with the moronic, "Only High I.Q. individuals need apply!” - and an AI Force - like his "tremendous SUCCESS" the largely illusory Space Force - back to a knee-jerk "SICK conspiracy" against AI and data centers like the "many Hoaxes generated by the Radical Left Dumocrats, for purposes of destroying our Country.” When in God's name will he learn: "It ill behooves a man to rave on at length."

Still nursing a long-held grudge against the elites of the arts world, especially the storied family who both embodied it and always outclassed him, he also remains obsessed with slapping his odious name on the Kennedy Center or, now, threatening to tear it down if he can't. George Conway: "To destroy things he can’t possess or control is his essential nature." After multiple losses in court - the most mortifying the forced removal of his name, which rankled so much he's lamely kept the facade covered with a tarp - he persists in arguing the flourishing-until-he-came-along Center is "a mess" that's lost "tens of millions" or maybe "hundreds of billions" and "I’m the one capable of fixing it." Otherwise, "The building is destined to doom (sic)."

Unsurprisingly, an emerging backstory is far seedier. The only thing straining finances is the arts world boycotting him and his own Treasury holding hostage hundreds of millions in funds. After a storm brought down some ceiling plaster, lackeys left it, posted photos - Trump will fix it! - mapped the “debris field” for a 55-page bullshit briefing, and voted to close down. Richard Grenell partly replaced the art collection, including African works honoring JFK, with MAGA "art," some from "the Tony Montana Meets Saddam Hussein Collection," and workers glitzed up Trump's theater boxes. After a judge again refused to restore his name, Trump threw a tantrum and brought in forklifts, prompting the judge to issue an emergency order forbidding any mob-like, midnight demolition.

Meanwhile, he whines - The Federal Reserve is raising interest rates “to make Trump do as bad as they can possibly do” (sic) - threatens - North Carolina may get no more FEMA funding after Helene, "the biggest water hurricane" - propagandizes - the Smithsonian's "Ideological Capture” - and a desperate GOP goose-steps along. Vance lies about immigrants, RFK Jr. blithers about "chemtrails," Melania sneers let them eat flowers, fabulist MAGA Mike, seeking to be raptured, boasts of an uber-productive House "almost unmatched in history." And Mitch 'Weekend at Bernie's - McConnell is outlandishly wheeled out, dead-eyed and smile-plastered, from a months-long stupor to cast a vital "vote." Mother Mary of God, make it stop.

Preening peacock Pete Hegseth, evidently thinking he’s still on TV, ordered commanders to choose only soldiers who meet “impeccable grooming and uniform standards (no exception)” to attend his upcoming “State of the Force” speech; if they’re really cute they may get to join one of his dorky workouts. He also revived testosterone screening for symptoms like low energy and “loss of spontaneous morning erections.” Rex Huppke: “OUR ENEMIES WILL QUAKE AT THE SIGHT OF AMERICA’S BONER WARRIORS!” No wonder Unholy Mike ran away - aka sent the House home early "to explain all the great things we’ve done" - so they couldn't vote on Rep. Thomas Massie's articles of impeachment against Hegseth for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Finally, there was Kash Patel, lackiest lackey of all, with his "unbelievable" testimony before a Senate hearing on newly lowered standards to work at the FBI. First, Tom Wellborn's background on Patel, a grown, childless man who wrote a kids' trilogy about a wizard named Kash serving a king named Donald; sold Ka$h-branded merch and anti-COVID-vaccine supplements; compiled an enemies list of high-level anti-Trump conspirators; took a government plane to hear his SWAT-team-protected girlfriend sing at a wrestling match; long yelled for release of the Epstein files until he was in power and found nothing to see; likewise ignored ICE abuses, rampant corruption, right-wing extremism while purging the FBI of 1,100-plus "disloyal" agents; and abruptly lowered standards to stop losing candidates to "the rigors of the requirements from yesteryear.”

Last week, Patel defended a new policy that no longer automatically disqualifies people for several offenses: paying for sex, defrauding employers, and bestiality - having sex with animals. In the FBI's universe of moral relativism, now you're all good if you hired a prostitute fewer than three times or over ten years ago; stole from your employer at least three years ago, or did unspeakable things with a sheep, horse, goat, dog etc when you were young and presumably horny. Throughout his testimony - here starting at 5:25 - Patel, who's suing The Atlantic for $250 million for credibly charging he's often drunk on the job, frantically shuffled papers that turned out to be cheat sheets to trash Sen. Dick Durbin, who calls him "the least qualified and most partisan FBI director in U.S. history."

Patel's surreal, wide-eyed, often bellicose testimony on, say, goat-fucking rattled even Louisiana's fake-folksy GOP Sen. John Kennedy, who was trying hard to give him the bizarre benefit of the doubt. After Patel explained the earlier policy "automatically disqualified any individual who participated on either side of it," a confused Kennedy asked, "Which side of what, the bestiality?" Patel: "Yes." Kennedy: "So, you disqualified the animal?" Patel: "We have some great canines - we're not gonna disqualify them. Hang on, I'm trying to explain." Kennedy: "So if Joe participated in bestiality, not as the animal but as the human, don't you think he ought to be disqualified?" Patel: "If he voluntarily did it, sure, but if he was trafficked into it..." Kennedy: But how do you involuntarily do it?" Etc.

Bravely, Kennedy tried to understand Patel's response to what he assumed was an underling's report. "Why would you get into bestiality?" he asked. "When you saw bestiality, I say this with respect...Why didn’t you just say, 'What planet did you parachute in from?'" Smirking, Patel said that was his response until he learned people were often "trafficked (into) these awful heinous acts." Then, he summoned his best impersonation of self-righteousness. "We did not want to punish victims of bestiality," he intoned, with the once-clear word "victim" doing a ludicrous amount of work. "At this FBI, we're not gonna criminalize and prevent victims from serving (America) in the premier law enforcement agency in the world." Maybe it was, before him. Maybe not. Just sayin'.

"This is what unseriousness looks like," noted one observer, "when it finally hits a wall." And when the edict, "Do not obey in advance" matters. Per Tolstoy: "The wicked become even worse when they are tolerated." Friday night, organizers of a protest dubbed "Hands Around the Kennedy Center" hoped for a turnout of 400 to 800 people. They were pleased when about 950 signed up online. Then over 6,400 showed up. The mood was angry, hopeful, defiant. One longtime volunteer said she was ready to "stand in front of the wrecking ball." People formed a human chain around the beloved concert hall a president just closed and called "a dump," relishing what it felt like “to hold hands with somebody you don’t know for something you believe in.” Afterwards, they all sang America the Beautiful.

Culture has a central place as a means of communicating, of creating links between cultures and of struggling.

The post Culture, a universal language for peasant struggles appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Intergenerational Report estimates coal and gas output could shrink about 70% by 2050 if emissions are cut in line with Paris target. Climate impacts, though, remain highly uncertain.

The post Intergenerational Report plots fossil fuel decline, rise of electrification, as climate impacts mount appeared first on Renew Economy.

EPBC waves through one of a series of renewable energy projects being built to wean remote WA towns off diesel fuel generation and power them with solar and battery storage. 

The post Local utility gets green light to replace remote town’s diesel and gas power with a solar-battery hybrid appeared first on Renew Economy.

Are “fast, free buses” a pie-in-the-sky New York City campaign promise, or an urgent policy prerogative for cities across America?

Results are still pending on now-mayor Zohran Mamdani’s pledge to free NYC transit riders from gridlock and the farebox. Advocates at the Climate and Community Institute argued last spring, though, that other cities can and should aspire to the same goal — even in an era of sharp federal transit cuts that have only escalated since their report was initially released.

“When we zoomed out from New York — which to many people seems like an outlier in the United States — we started finding so many examples of smaller cities that were implementing these kinds of changes, both to speed buses up and to reduce or eliminate fares,” said John Stehlin, a professor at University of North Carolina, Greensboro and co-author of the report. “Sometimes, [they’re even doing both] at the same time. It seemed like way more of a national story, despite the fact that New York was getting the biggest headlines.”

Why fast and free?

Stehlin notes that transit agencies across the country are already working to speed up routes or zero out the price of a ride — even if most do neither, and few have done both.

On the “fast” side of the equation, Pittsburgh has been building dedicated bus corridors since the 1970s; meanwhile, true bus rapid transit has been operational in places like Los Angeles, Cleveland, and Eugene, Oregon, since the late 2000s. Countless others have explored lower-lift strategies, too, like giving buses first priority at traffic signals.

When it comes to free transit, dozens of cities have gone zero-fare on at least a few of their routes for decades, especially in downtown business districts or tourist areas. Many small communities like ski towns have even stopped collecting cash system-wide — and more could probably afford to, since US transit agencies recovered just 13 percent of their operating expenses on average from ticket sales in 2024.

In some communities like Olympia, Washington, agencies found that enforcing fare collection actually cost them more than the amount their riders were paying.

“A lot of places looked at the cost of collecting fares and found that the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze,” added Stehlin.

And the societal payoff for giving folks a free ride could be huge. One study cited by the researchers found that ridership shoots up an average of 56 percent after fares are eliminated.

When policies that make buses fast and free are implemented together, though, Stehlin says both priorities are often easier to achieve.

Eliminating fares, for instance, can get buses out of the stop and back on the road faster, since drivers don’t have to wait extra time for passengers to fumble with fare cards and loose change.

Speeding up routes, meanwhile, can attract new riders, which helps make whole systems more efficient – and helps make the case for what Stehlin calls “collecting fares on the societal level.” He encourages skeptics to think of it like the taxes and bonds communities currently collect to fund public libraries, where we’d never think of charging for books per check-out.

Still, he acknowledges that some “free” transit programs haven’t translated into steep ridership increases, while cannibalizing scarce revenues that agencies sorely need to speed buses up. But he says that’s all the more reason to think of the two policies as two sides of the same positive feedback loop — and fund both robustly.

“This is evidence that we should really look at implementing fast and free together, because if you have a bus system that’s not working well enough for people and meeting their needs, then making it free is not going to attract a lot of people,” added Emmett Hopkins, Stehlin’s co-author and the Transportation Policy Manager for the Institute. “But if we can do both together, then it can.”

Perhaps the best reason to do fast and free together, the authors argue, is simply how many lives it would make better.

“We found stories of specific people [whose] buses had been made faster or free, and those people were just better able to stay connected to the things that they needed in their lives — whether it be housing, health care, school, work, groceries, recreation, or their loved ones,” said Hopkins.

Recommended Why Arguments Against ‘Free Transit’ Are Missing the Point Streetsblog August 23, 2022

As Washington aims for steep federal transit cuts and transit agencies across the country follow suit, both Hopkins and Stehlin acknowledge that achieving the dream of fast and free buses nationwide won’t be easy. Still, they say it is possible — with a few ambitious policies.

First, both co-authors emphasize that forward-thinking state DOTs already have the ability to “flex” capital dollars away from highways and towards transit agencies, freeing up funds to plan and build faster infrastructure like bus rapid transit.

Advocates, meanwhile, can fight for funding explicitly to support fare-free operations, like Virginia already did to eliminate fares in its capital city of Richmond — at the cost of just $5 million, or 0.4 percent of the DOT’s annual budget.

State legislatures can clear the way by abolishing outdated “minimum farebox recovery” mandates that effectively require agencies to charge for a ride, and let localities pass local bond measures, raise taxes, and pursue other revenue streams to amp up transit investment of all kinds.

And if full-scale bus rapid transit redesigns and system-wide fare abolition aren’t in the cards, agencies can always start small with interventions like changing signal priority to benefit buses, or making key downtown routes free.

“States and cities have the opportunity to give people those better options on a pretty short time scale,” added Hopkins. “That could happen in a matter of months or within a year — or, in some cases, almost immediately.”

Stehlin adds that there’s hope for faster, free buses even in communities not known for being progressive on transit — because many of them are already doing it, at least at small scale. Perhaps the best example is Birmingham, Alabama, which saw ridership rise sharply after its free, 10-mile rapid transit project, Birmingham Xpress, opened in 2022.

“One of the things that we noticed when we did the research for this report was that we’re already seeing a lot of success in these kinds of initiatives in relatively conservative states,” Stehlin said. “There are aspects of this that are more popular than a car-only agenda.”

An earlier version of this story misstated how much it cost for Virginia to fund free buses in Arlington. It was 0.4 percent, not 0.07 percent.

Let’s imagine a city that wants more visitors to explore its downtown on foot. The photographs on the city’s website show a pedestrian paradise: broad sidewalks, outdoor tables, even a trail along the water. A family arrives by bus, follows the map the city provided … and discovers that to reach the trail entrance, they have to cross a busy road. Those last few hundred feet might ruin the whole afternoon. 

Let’s take another example: a public plaza has been open for years, but its restrooms close before evening programming begins. Or imagine a visitor’s district which promises a car-free day out, yet the last return bus leaves before the advertised evening activities finish. 

In each example, an attractive public promise meets a practical challenge that the whole trip depends on — and it fails the test. 

These are different problems with different owners. But they all share the same planning question: has anyone tested the whole journey that people are being invited to make, from beginning to end? 

Whether we’re talking about streetscapes, trails, transit connections, or public spaces, the usefulness of our local investments often depends on what happens beyond a construction boundary or departmental responsibility. A bike path can be finished while the connection to the larger bike network remains unresolved; an event can be staffed while the route home is overlooked. A map can describe a continuous experience for which no single organization is responsible, so it doesn’t deliver on its promise. 

The framework I call “Visitor Readiness” offers a way to examine those dependencies, through five questions: What is being promised? Who has the capacity to deliver it? What conditions must exist? How will delivery work? What will actual use teach us?

Visitor readiness in practice  

Despite the name, Visitor Readiness applies to residents as well as tourists. Someone crossing town for a shift, accompanying a child, or visiting an unfamiliar neighborhood should not need insider knowledge to make a public space work. Residents also have knowledge that a promotional itinerary can miss; their experience should help define readiness from the beginning.

Start with a specific promise. The vague desire for a “A connected waterfront” is difficult to meet. But a community canguarantee that “a person arriving at this bus stop can reach the waterfront on a continuous, usable route and return after the event.” Specificity gives a team something to examine. It also makes clear where transportation, parks, event operations, and communications have to coordinate.

Then, follow that journey with the people who depend on it. Include disabled residents, transit riders, nearby workers, and caregivers. Compensate participation where possible. A lunchtime walkthrough by project staff cannot establish what happens after dark, during a busy event, or when a usual route is closed. Ask who is missing from the test and what their absence leaves unknown.

For planners and advocates, the practical questions are straightforward: Can someone find and complete the trip without a car, a smartphone, or prior local knowledge? Do opening hours and transportation schedules actually support the activity being promoted? Where can someone rest, find a restroom, or get help? Who corrects conflicting information? When a connection fails, who has the authority and budget to fix it?

Record the answers in ordinary language. Separate what has been observed from what is assumed. Assign each unresolved question to someone who can answer it, and pick a date to check on their progress. “Coordinate with partners” is insufficient when everyone believes another organization owns the problem.

How quickly you respond to those questions should correspond to how urgent the problem is. Correcting an outdated map could happen immediately. Extending restroom hours requires staffing and an operating budget, and that needs to be sorted out soon. A dangerous crossing needs a substantive safety response; better directions cannot compensate for unsafe access. When not all problems can be immediately solved, communicate the limitation clearly and specify the work needed to finish the job. 

An evolving process 

Visitor Readiness must also remain open to revision. An established trail or plaza can become unusable when service hours change, a nearby connection closes, or maintenance falls behind. Teams should revisit the journey after significant changes and use complaints, staff observations, and conversations with people who stopped coming to identify what might have been missed. 

In addition to capital funding, advocates can and should ask for the operational resources they need to do this work: an operating owner, maintenance and access, a test of the full journey, and a public review after use begins. That makes readiness part of delivering an improvement, rather than another indefinite hurdle to be surmounted in the quest to build safer streets.

Promoting a public place creates expectations about how it will work. The useful test is whether someone can actually do what that space invites them to do, under the conditions they will actually encounter. Public investment earns its value in those ordinary trips — including the last few hundred feet.

• Rural communities that only have bare-bones transit service as it is will feel the brunt of congressional Republicans’ cuts to federal transit funding. The proposed BUILD America 250 Act provides only $103 billion for transit over five years, compared to $120 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed by President Biden in 2021. (Grist)
• Meanwhile, the stopgap transportation funding law signed by President Trump three weeks ago cuts funding for three rail grant programs from $9 billion to just $200 million. (Railway Supply)
• Several rail and transit funding referendums are scheduled for November, and with federal support flagging, losses at the ballot box could be catastrophic. (Governing)
• Probably the largest of those is a Bay Area vote to help the region’s four struggling transit agencies (San Jose Mercury News). Oakland residents gathered at city hall recently to push for passing the $14 billion measure (Oaklandside).
• A set of key votes on Austin light rail are scheduled for today (KXAN).
• In addition, the Atlanta city council will vote on a resolution in support of light rail along the Beltline (CBS News).
• The California High-Speed Rail Authority reimbursed $600,000 in unallowable expenses like Uber rides and bar tabs, according to an investigator general’s report. (CalMatters)
• The Federal Transit Administration has closed a years-long review of safety on Boston transit. (WGBH)
• The Miami-Dade government shifted $5 million to its already flush tourism bureau at a time when transit is struggling. (WLRN)
• Both U.S. Senate candidates in Michigan favor suspending state and federal gas taxes (Michigan Public), even though that doesn’t save drivers much money and hampers transportation projects.
• North Carolina started an initiative making it easier for Raleigh-to-Charlotte intercity rail passengers to connect to local transit. (ABC 11)
• San Antonio is starting a pilot program to help late-shift service industry workers get home. (KSAT)
• A bus rapid transit project in Bloomington is on hold as the city awaits federal grant approval. (Bloomingtonian)
• Quartz ranked Cambridge, UK as the most bike-friendly city in the world, with Marrakech, Warsaw and some other surprises landing in the top 10 along with the usual Northern European suspects.

Victoria's coal country is rapidly morphing into battery country, as one huge project starts commissioning, while another marks a construction milestone with major expansion plans.

The post Renewables retailer doubles down on coal country battery plans as huge new BESS prepares to power up appeared first on Renew Economy.

British Columbia should make long-term care part of its big-project building agenda and commit to a construction timetable for seven deferred public care projects, says a new report from the Centre for Future Work.

The report examines the economic benefits of building public long-term care facilities, and the dangers and costs of relying on for-profit operators. It argues that full accounting of the costs and benefits of long-term care construction needs to include financing charges (which are much lower for public builds), broader economic spin-offs from new construction, and a range of savings resulting from superior health outcomes demonstrated in public facilities.

Projections indicate the province needs 16,000 additional subsidized long-term care beds over the next decade—about 1,600 a year. But over the last six years, B.C. added an average of only about 240 net new beds annually.

Despite that gap, seven public long-term care construction and redevelopment projects were deferred in the province’s 2026 budget. The provincial government continues to list the projects in its long-term capital plan, but without firm timelines for construction.

The report challenges exaggerated stereotypes about the cost of building public long-term care facilities, and called for more transparent and systematic comparisons of cost estimates. Many public projects include services such as child care, hospice spaces and other services, often accessible to the broader community – making simple per-bed comparisons misleading.

Financing is an important cost advantage for public builds. In an illustrative comparison, the higher cost of private borrowing increases cumulative interest costs by 41 per cent, adding $49 million to a $200 million project over 25 years.

Most long-term care in B.C. receives provincial government funding, regardless of whether a facility is publicly owned, non-profit, or for-profit. Those payments help cover building and financing expenses as well as operating costs. Data published by the B.C. Senior’s Advocate indicates that building costs in private facilities (ultimately charged to the public purse) are much higher than non-profit facilities.

Outsourcing new builds to private operators does not make the public cost disappear. Government still pays for those facilities through decades of care funding.

The report calls for a transparent comparison of construction costs across public, non-profit and for-profit facilities. It identifies ways to improve value in future projects, including using public land, sharing sites with other health services, standardizing designs and coordinating procurement.

It recommends that the provincial government quickly complete its review of the deferred projects, and publish a reliable construction timetable by the next provincial budget. It also calls for capital funding and development support for non-profit providers, alongside a longer-term plan to meet projected demand.

Please see the full report, Economic Benefits from Construction of Public Long Term Care Capacity in British Columbia, authored by Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

The post The Build-Big Agenda in B.C. Should Include Long-Term Care Homes appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

A sketch in water territories1

Elba Mercedes Palacios Córdoba

This article was written in Spanish. Read the original article here.

In an attempt to understand what is happening to us—amidst the fiction that “anything goes” and the “every …

Un esbozo en territorios de agua1

Elba Mercedes Palacios Córdoba

An English translation of this article is available here. // Una traducción al inglés de este artículo está disponible aquí.

En un intento por comprender lo que nos …

VicGrid has released its preferred route for the 60 km new transmission line needed to bring offshore wind power to the main grid in the Latrobe Valley.

The post Route for first offshore wind transmission link mapped out amid scramble to meet 2032 target appeared first on Renew Economy.

In this special episode recorded live from Everything Electric Sydney, we explore how close Australia is to making V2G an everyday reality.

The post The Driven Podcast: Is Australia finally ready for V2G? | Live from Everything Electric Sydney appeared first on Renew Economy.

State Electricity Commission says it will slash the power bill of major sports and aquatic centre by as much as $80,000 a year through a rooftop solar system it has installed and will operate.

The post State utility partners on massive rooftop solar array to slash sports centre’s annual power bill by $80,000 appeared first on Renew Economy.

NSW takes lead on mandatory recycling for solar panels that could set a national benchmark, and bypass a roadblock created by stalled federal scheme.

The post NSW takes lead on mandatory solar panel recycling as ministers call for urgent action on rising tide of waste appeared first on Renew Economy.

EPBC waves through 2 GW wind, solar and battery project proposed for Australia's biggest isolated grid, with list of conditions to protect endangered black cockatoos and native flora.

The post Huge hybrid wind project gets final green tick, but must use tall turbines to avoid black cockatoos appeared first on Renew Economy.

The Amazon does not need new masters Channel News brendan 21st September 2026 Teaser Media

On Thursday evening, Sept. 24, Food Tank, New York University, and Rodale Institute will host Marion Nestle’s 90th Birthday Party at Climate Week NYC 2026. The evening will honor and celebrate Nestle’s legacy of advancing evidence-based nutrition, championing transparency in the food system, and empowering people to ask critical questions about the food we eat.

“Marion Nestle has spent her career teaching us that food is never just food. The choices we make about how we grow, sell, market, and eat shape our health, our communities, and the future of our planet,” said Jeff Tkach, CEO of the Rodale Institute.

Nestle is Professor Emerita of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University and one of the world’s most influential voices on food, nutrition, and public health. She has spent decades shaping the national conversation on food policy, corporate influence, nutrition science, and the importance of healthy, equitable food systems. Nestle is also a bestselling author of numerous acclaimed books, including Food Politics, What to Eat, Slow Cooked, and, most recently, Sugar Coated, which will be on sale in the lobby by Books On Call NYC.

With live musical performances, toasts, cake, and a fireside chat with Nestle herself, the evening will celebrate how she has inspired generations of researchers, policymakers, journalists, and advocates.

To conclude the evening, Rodale Institute will present Nestle with the Organic Stewardship Award for Lifetime Achievement in Education. Since 2011, the award has recognized individuals whose work has profoundly influenced efforts to improve the health of our agriculture and food systems. Nestle will receive the inaugural award for education, recognizing her visionary work to inspire lasting change by deepening public understanding of the vital relationship between agriculture, nutrition, environmental stewardship, and human health.

“For decades, Marion has had the courage to ask the questions others won’t, challenge conventional thinking, and bring clarity to complex issues. In doing so, she has shaped how generations understand our food system and empowered them to think more critically about their role within it,” says Tkach. “It is a privilege to honor her extraordinary body of work with Rodale Institute’s first Organic Stewardship Lifetime Achievement Award for Education.”

The evening will feature toasts to Marion Nestle by food system visionaries including Jennifer Berg, Clinical Professor and Department Chair, Nutrition and Food Studies, NYU Steinhardt; Mark Bittman, Editor-in-Chief, The Bittman Project; Nancy Easton, Executive Director and Co-Founder, Wellness in the Schools; Kathleen Finlay, President, Glynwood Center for Regional Food and Farming; Cathy Kaufman, Culinary Historian and Food Studies Scholar; Corby Kummer, Executive Director of Food & Society, the Aspen Institute, Senior Editor, The Atlantic, and Senior Lecturer, Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science; Frances Moore Lappé, Author and Co-Founder, Small Planet Institute; Kristie Patten, Gale and Ira Drukier Dean, NYU Steinhardt; Ruth Reichl, Author and Former Editor in Chief, Gourmet; Kim Severson, The New York Times; Max Sinsheimer, Literary Agent, Sinsheimer Literary, LLC; and Lisa Sutherland, Co-Author with Marion Nestle, Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food, and Interim President, Jacksonville University.

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

The birthday party will also feature special musical performances by Singer-Songwriter Amber Rubarth; Jake Pedersen, a Broadway and TV actor currently in Ragtime on Broadway, who recently starred as Boq in Wicked on Broadway and on tour, as well as Frankie Epps in Parade on Broadway; and Maria Caputo, a New York-based composer, pianist, vocalist, music director, and Broadway music copyist whose work spans musical theatre, jazz, classical, and contemporary music.

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

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

The post Celebrating Marion Nestle appeared first on Food Tank.

On Monday afternoon, Sept. 21, Food Tank will host the “Mission-Driven Brands Sustainability Summit” at Climate Week NYC 2026, in partnership with Bel US, Northstar Recycling, the Global Traceability Framework for Beef and Leather, and Bonterra Organic Estates.

The event is Food Tank’s annual gathering of Chief Sustainability Officers, mission-driven brand leaders, impact directors, and founders at Climate Week NYC. The afternoon will feature food system industry leaders discussing challenges and opportunities for brands to make an impact across retail, food service, and hospitality.

“We’re honored to join this conversation during Climate Week NYC and to celebrate the organizations demonstrating that purpose and commercial leadership can go hand in hand,” says Mark Kaplan, Chief Marketing and Sustainability Officer at blockchain-based traceability system Wholechain.

Speakers will explore how to build a common language for supply chains, including through solutions like The Global Traceability Framework for Beef and Leather. The pre-competitive platform for collaborative action provides a shared foundation for how traceability data is captured and exchanged, so systems can work together across companies and geographies.

“Leather has traditionally been treated as a byproduct and afterthought of the beef industry,” says Jason Weller, Chief Sustainability Officer at JBS, the world’s largest meat processor. “At JBS, we have spent years building the expertise and techniques to elevate leather as a valuable resource: tracing hides to the source farm groups, re-engineering tanning chemistry to cut water and chemical use, and performing in-depth analyses so that we understand opportunities to improve the greenhouse gas emissions performance of our products.”

“We are thrilled JBS is joining us and showing their leadership by example to advance standardized, interoperable traceability,” says Kaplan. “Their leadership shows how mission-driven brands can accelerate meaningful progress by building the common language for data sharing that benefits their entire industries.”

The conversation will also turn to regenerative agriculture and how brands can support more resilient farming systems. Panel topics and fireside chats include “Mission Driven from Brand to Shelf,” “Regenerative Agriculture Grain to Glass at Star Hill,” and “How Regenerative Vineyards Are Shaping the Future of Wine.”

Immersive tasting experiences throughout the afternoon will feature traceable beef, lobster, and honey, Bel US cheese, Maker’s Mark whiskey, and wines from Bonterra Organic Estates.

“As climate change continues to challenge our food system, we must transition from extractive to regenerative models of production,” says Beatrix Scolari, Sustainability Manager at Bonterra Organic Estates. “Food Tank provides a forum for sharing the ideas, partnerships, and practical solutions needed to make that transition possible. Bonterra is honored to join this year’s summit, and we hope participants leave inspired by the growing evidence that regenerative agriculture can both strengthen farm resilience and help restore the health of our planet.”

With lightning talks on topics like the future of circular food systems, speakers will also emphasize the importance of collaboration across the food system to turn sustainability goals into action.

“Meaningful progress in sustainability happens when leaders across the food system come together to share what’s working, challenge conventional thinking, and learn from one another. That’s what makes gatherings like this so valuable,” says Shawna Laczko, Chief Revenue Officer at Northstar Recycling. “I hope attendees leave with new perspectives, practical ideas they can take back to their organizations, and a stronger sense of how collaboration across the value chain can turn ambitious sustainability goals into real, scalable progress.”

The event will kick off at WNYC-NPR Studios’ The Greene Space in New York City at 1:30pm with food and live musical performances, followed by a reception until 5pm.

Speakers include Jordan Catalana, Senior Manager, Social Impact, Tapestry Foundation; Dana Cowin, Founder, Progressive Hedonist and Former Editor-in-Chief, Food & Wine Magazine; Stephen Cronk, Co-Founder and Trustee, The Regenerative Viticulture Foundation; Co-Founder and CEO, Maison Mirabeau; Diana Hanus, Senior Executive Vice President, Commercial & Business Development, Sovereign Seas; Ann Marie Hourigan, Head of Quality Standards, Whole Foods Market; Mark Kaplan, Chief Marketing and Sustainability Officer, Wholechain; Shawna Laczko, Chief Revenue Officer, Northstar Recycling; Elaina Leibee, Wine Director, Erewhon; Peter McGuinness, CEO, Bel North America; Sarah McMullin, Senior Vice President, Owned Brands Product Operations and Manufacturing, Target; Danielle Nierenberg, President, Food Tank; Rob Samuels, Eighth-Generation Whisky Maker and Managing Director, Maker’s Mark; Beatrix Scolari, Sustainability Manager, Bonterra Organic Estates; and Jason Weller, Global Chief Sustainability Officer, JBS.

“Mission Driven Brands Sustainability Summit” will feature a special musical performance by Daniel Quadrino, Broadway actor currently starring as Boq in Wicked, with additional Broadway credits including The Who’s Tommy, Newsies, and Bye Bye Birdie. He will be joined by Ryan Fielding Garrett, a New York City-based composer, music director, orchestrator, and musician whose Broadway credits include Kinky Boots, Wicked, Back to the Future, The Notebook, and Mean Girls.

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

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

The post Food and Agriculture Businesses Tackle Food Sustainability at Climate Week NYC appeared first on Food Tank.

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

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

Introduction

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

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

This file turns to the other contract.

This one really did concern Sakhalin.

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

The Sakhalin LNG contract was supposed to continue until 2028.

The cargoes stopped during the third quarter of 2022.

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

“stood terminated.” (SEC)

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

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

1. Shell was not merely a shareholder in Sakhalin II

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

It was an investor.

It supplied technology and expertise.

It participated in project governance.

And it was also an LNG buyer.

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

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

The commercial structure subsequently evolved.

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

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

1 million tonnes of LNG per year

from Sakhalin Energy.

Deliveries were scheduled from 2009 until:

2028

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

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

But one point is beyond serious dispute:

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

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

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

Its LNG business operates as a portfolio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The contract price formula is not before us.

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

3. Then came the June 2022 presidential decree

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

The existing operator was the Bermuda-incorporated:

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.

Russia created a replacement domestic company:

Sakhalin Energy LLC.

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

Gazprom remained.

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

Shell did not. (euronews)

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

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

That distinction now became critical.

4. Other Sakhalin customers were offered new contracts

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

Instead, customers had to deal with the new operator.

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

JERA subsequently signed an agreement with the new operator.

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

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

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

This creates an important comparison.

The project continued.

Japanese buyers continued.

Japanese shareholders continued.

Shell did not.

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

The first authenticated Shell record is strikingly terse.

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

Then it records:

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

The report did not identify the counterparty in that sentence.

But the identity soon became clear.

It was Sakhalin.

Interfax reported Shell’s clarification on 2 February 2023.

One Russian LNG contract involved Novatek and Yamal LNG.

The other was the Sakhalin contract running until 2028.

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

6. Shell initially said it was evaluating its legal options

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

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

Shell was no longer receiving the LNG cargoes.

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

That was not yet an announcement of a settlement.

Nor was it an announcement of a damages claim.

It was a reservation of position.

The contractual consequences were still being assessed.

7. Shell’s 2023 annual report went considerably further

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

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

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

Shell then stated the consequence:

the contract:

“stood terminated.”

(SEC)

That wording deserves care.

It represents Shell’s legal position.

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

But the wording nevertheless establishes something important.

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

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

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

The distinction is substantial.

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

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

Shell’s own filings say the opposite.

It is useful because it preserves the nominal contractual horizon.

The original commercial arrangement extended to 2028.

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

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

9. The physical LNG did not disappear

This is another critical distinction.

The project continued producing LNG.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. The Japanese buyers illustrate what might otherwise be misunderstood

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

Different counterparties made different choices and faced different circumstances.

Japan regarded Sakhalin II as significant to its energy security.

JERA, Tokyo Gas and other Japanese buyers pursued continuity.

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

The resulting contractual paths diverged.

That is established.

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

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

There is an apparent paradox here.

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

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

Those positions are not necessarily inconsistent.

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

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

The Sakhalin contract therefore had to be legally dealt with.

A corporate policy announcement could not simply rewrite the contract.

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

Those provisions have not been located publicly for this file.

12. What did Shell actually lose?

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

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

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

Among the missing variables are:

the contract pricing formula;

the exact quantity schedule;

destination and diversion rights;

take-or-pay provisions;

force majeure clauses;

sanctions provisions;

termination rights;

replacement cargo costs;

Shell’s hedging position;

and any obligation to mitigate losses.

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

The documentary finding is narrower:

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

13. Did Shell ever obtain compensation?

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

That absence requires qualification.

International LNG agreements commonly contain confidential dispute-resolution provisions.

Any arbitration could itself be private.

Negotiations could also remain confidential.

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

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

14. By 2023 only the Novatek contract remained

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

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

One was Sakhalin.

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

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

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

Shell’s 2024 report repeated the same position.

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

The accounting trail therefore tells the story almost mechanically:

Two Russian LNG contracts.

Then:

Sakhalin stops performing.

Then:

Sakhalin contract terminated.

Then:

one Russian LNG contract remains.

15. The surviving contract is not Sakhalin

This is important because it prevents another possible confusion.

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

That does not mean the Sakhalin agreement revived.

The remaining contract is with a Novatek entity.

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

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

That distinction will matter in the next instalment.

16. The current Moscow lawsuit is about something else

Another distinction is essential.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping those transactions separate is crucial.

Documentary Findings Established

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

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

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

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

Shell did not enter the replacement operating company.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shell’s stated legal position

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

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

Those are authenticated statements of Shell’s position.

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

Not established

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary

The missing cargoes reveal another reason the phrase:

“Shell left Sakhalin in 2022”

is inadequate as history.

Shell had spent decades embedding itself in Sakhalin II.

Its relationship with the project consisted of layers.

Ownership.

Management.

Technology.

Project finance.

LNG production.

Trading.

Long-term purchasing.

Those layers did not disappear simultaneously.

Shell announced its withdrawal from Russian investments in February 2022.

Its significant influence over Sakhalin Energy disappeared shortly afterwards.

Russia transferred the project to a new operating entity.

Shell declined to join it.

But an LNG purchase contract still existed.

Then the cargoes stopped.

Then Shell considered its legal options.

Then Shell formally recorded the contract as renounced and terminated.

That is not a single exit event.

It is an unwinding.

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

Another archival lesson

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

The headline in 2022 was:

Shell exits Russia.

The accounts revealed something much more complicated.

Shell still had Russian LNG contracts.

One supplier stopped delivering.

The Sakhalin contract disappeared.

The Novatek contract survived.

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

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

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

None of those details fits comfortably into the simple phrase:

“Shell left.”

That is precisely why the documentary chronology matters.

Source Record

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

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2022

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

SEC — Shell Form 20-F 2023

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

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

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

Reuters — Russia approves Mitsubishi participation in new Sakhalin II operator

Reuters — Japanese utilities receive replacement Sakhalin contracts

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

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

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

Gazprom — Sakhalin II project record

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

SEC — Shell Form 20-F 2025

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

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

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

The Sakhalin agreement disappeared.

The other Russian LNG contract did not.

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

900,000 tonnes of Yamal LNG every year

for:

more than twenty years.

(LNG Industry)

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

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

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

That raises the next documentary question:

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

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 20 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 20, 2026 at 7:49 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net