News Feeds

Reproduction of the demon core. A sphere of plutonium about the size of a softball, it weighed about 13.7 pounds. It was about the size as the core in the bomb that leveled Nagasaki. Notice of Permission: This image is from Los Alamos National Laboratory. Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS), operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25396 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor LANS makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.

George Harvey

This story is what I would call almost incredible. The President of the United States signed Executive Order 14302, titled “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Base,” which directed the US Department of Energy to stop its operation getting rid of nuclear bomb materials by diluting and dispersing them. The DOE would instead give the weapons-grade plutonium to private industries to use in nuclear reactors.

The amount of plutonium under discussion is to be twenty metric tons. The Fat Man bomb used on Nagasaki contained about 6.2 kilograms, or 13.66 pounds. It leveled about two square miles of the city. Twenty metric tons is enough to make thousands of such bombs.

The plutonium would go to five nuclear energy startups with the idea that it would be used to make electricity. But the theft of just a few pounds of it could be enough to make the terrorist attack on the twin towers look like a children’s game.

U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) commented on this at his official web site. We have reprinted the comment in full, here.

# # #

Senator Markey Decries Security Concerns, Conflicts of Interest with Trump Proposal to Give Weapons-Usable Plutonium to Private Companies

Washington (June 2, 2026) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-Chair of the bicameral Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, today wrote to President Trump urging him to cancel the Department of Energy’s (DOE) plans to give 20 metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium—enough for approximately 2,000 nuclear bombs—to private industry for commercial energy use. If implemented, this would be the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies. These plans go against long-standing bipartisan U.S. nuclear security policy, raise serious weapons proliferation concerns, make little economic sense, and raise conflict of interest issues. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently served on the Board of Directors of Oklo, one of the companies that may receive plutonium.

In the letter, Senator Markey wrote, “For five decades, the United States has avoided the commercial use of plutonium and opposed the spread of technology to separate (“reprocess”) plutonium from used reactor fuel. We did so to prevent nations with nuclear power plants (such as Iran) from being able to extract plutonium from that fuel, which they—or terrorists into whose hands it could fall—could use to make nuclear weapons.”

Senator Markey continued, “I am concerned that your Administration is moving forward with plans to transfer plutonium to Oklo not because these proposals make sense for the United States, but because Oklo stands to benefit financially and Secretary Wright is acting in his former company’s interest. Secretary Wright’s close ties to the company present an appearance of impropriety.”

In the letter, Senator Markey requested answers by June 15, 2026, to questions that include:

• Why should the U.S. government facilitate the transfer of plutonium to private industry and the development and export of proliferation prone reprocessing technologies?
• What safety and security measures are planned for the transport of weapons-grade plutonium to private actors?
• What role did Secretary Wright play in the selection of Oklo for the Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program?
• Does Secretary Wright currently have a financial stake in Oklo, and does he stand to benefit in any way from Oklo’s role in this program?

On September 23, 2025, Senator Markey wrote to Trump raising concerns about Secretary of Energy Chris Wright’s close relationship with Oklo Inc., a nuclear technology company that suggests a conflict of interest within the Administration that could compromise U.S. national security by providing weapons-usable plutonium to private industry. On September 10, 2025, Senator Markey and Representatives John Garamendi (CA-08) and Don Beyer (VA-08) wrote to President Trump expressing concern over DOE’s plan to transfer at least 20 metric tons of weapons-usable plutonium to private industry for commercial energy use.

# # #

We should keep in mind that the purpose of the organizations that intend to use the plutonium is to use it to make electricity. It is worth looking at that.

No commercial nuclear reactor has ever been run entirely on plutonium. Reactors using what is called MOX (mixed oxide) are used in France, but they only contain about 11% plutonium, at most. A nuclear reactor that uses plutonium would have to be developed from scratch, a process that would take years.

There would have to be adequate security on the plutonium. This goes beyond meaning that terrorists would not get any of it. The security around moving it would be complex, but it would have to be very sure. If the reactor were in Wyoming and the plutonium at Los Alamos, in New Mexico, it would have to be transported between those sites. How would that be done? It would have to be done entirely in secret, to be safe. But that means secret shipments of a material that is potent enough to make a nuclear bomb out of less than twenty pounds. And that is just one of many considerations.

On the other hand, we have ways to generate electricity that are almost certainly less expensive, do not produce waste, are non-polluting, and are highly reliable. These are solar, wind, and batteries. Solar and batteries are commonly used for off-grid homes, but they can be scaled from up to provide for a power grid. This is not new technology. It is used all over the world. And the electricity it produces is highly reliable and just about the least expensive out there. It can be installed very quickly.

Why would anyone what to pay extra to have bomb-grade materials moved secretly through their communities for the sake of making what may be the highest-cost power available?

 

 

Grid connection approval has been secured for massive solar farm and eight-hour battery hybrid project, expected to be the biggest of its kind in Australia.

The post Australia’s biggest solar-battery hybrid project secures grid connection approval appeared first on Renew Economy.

Join members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice as we explore how the Just Transition
Mechanism can support holistic and integrated transitions across sectors such as energy, food systems and land use.

Monday 8 June 2026

12:00-13:15

Room Berlin

The post Bonn SB64 side event: How can the Just Transition Mechanism support holistic transitions across sectors? appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

Bowen urged “to lead with vision and ambition" as he heads to Bonn to take helm of key climate negotiations in the lead up to COP31.

The post Bowen urged to “lead with vision and ambition” as he takes helm of Bonn climate talks appeared first on Renew Economy.

Utility solar projects in Australia face significant increase in costs following an anti dumping ruling that could lead to 48 pct tariffs on steel tubings for module mountings.

The post Solar projects to be hit by big increase in costs due to new Australian anti-dumping decision appeared first on Renew Economy.

Martijn Wilder has been recognised for his pioneering work in sustainable finance, renewables, conservation and climate law. 

The post Capital and carbon: Australian green finance pioneer Martijn Wilder honoured in King’s birthday awards appeared first on Renew Economy.

Driverless taxis spend just as much time driving around without a passenger as regular taxis, according to a new study — a finding that reveals a major shortcoming for a technology that boosters say will revolutionize transportation forever.

The study in the journal Transport Findings reveals that robotaxis spend roughly 45 percent of their total mileage without passengers — which is so close to regular taxis that one transportation industry expert feels he’s been lied to.

“I’ve been assured by these industry insiders that deadheading would fall to very low levels with robotaxis, but it’s pretty clear that’s not happening,” said David Zipper, a contributing writer at Bloomberg.

The concern is obvious: Commercial robotaxis are on the rise across the United States. According to the study —  “Millions of Trips, “Waymo” Empty Miles: California’s First Thousand Days of Commercial Robotaxi Service” — robotaxi prevalence has grown by an average of 15 percent monthly since they were first introduced in August 2023. That 15 percent is consistent across all measures: trips completed, miles traveled and passengers carried.

Here’s a Waymo in San Francisco.

But the potential for robotaxis is also obvious: Unlike traditional taxi companies, which manage individual drivers, robotaxi companies manage fleets of cars. As a result, these companies should be able to program the vehicles’ routes to avoid excessive deadheading. Instead, both traditional ride share and robotaxis travel almost half of their mileage without passengers. 

But change is happening … a little. According to the study, robotaxis now spend an average of 18 minutes empty between consecutive passenger trips, down from 28 minutes since 2023, likely due to an expanded fleet size which has allowed for a more efficient distribution of robotaxis, according to the author of the study. 

Still, author Awad Abdelhalim, added that a larger fleet means more cars deadheading overall, so “it cancels some of those benefits.” 

Awad said he wasn’t surprised by the findings because taxi companies like Waymo are deploying their fleets using the same old methods of offering taxi service — namely by sending cars out of a depot.

“There is quite a bit of deadheading naturally required to distribute vehicles across the service area to be able to serve customers,” said Abdulhalim. He added that traditional ride share has “some ‘natural’ distribution of vehicles based on where drivers are starting from based on home locations.”

Robotaxis also travel without a passenger while waiting to be assigned one, and this measurement has remained steady throughout the course of the study. 

“That’s the biggest problem,” said Zipper. It’s unclear exactly what robotaxis are doing during that time, but reporting from San Francisco and other cities where these cars operate suggests that they are, more or less, driving around aimlessly, passengerless.  

Robotaxis only operate in select metropolitan areas included San Francisco, the Bay Area and Los Angeles, highly congested areas where deadheading only makes matters worse.

“The presence of empty robotaxis does thicken traffic,” Zipper said. “All of these deadhead miles seem to counteract the safety claims that robotaxi companies have.”

Waymo, the company leading the charge on robotaxis, has claimed — extensively, on its website — that its vehicles will make streets safer.

• A Planetizen analysis found that the majority of 13,000 public comments on the House transportation funding authorization bill want Congress to fund transit, walking and biking, safety, wildlife crossings and faster approval for projects. Instead, the bill cuts funding for public transit and passenger rail (Rail Passengers Association). It will also give red states more freedom to spend federal dollars on highways, but give a greater share of funding to mostly blue municipalities (Brookings Institute).
• Two-thirds of Americans over the age of 50 say public transit is important to them, and three-quarters support transit-oriented development, according to an AARP poll.
• After Sound Transit opened the Crosslake Connection in March, ridership on Seattle’s Link light rail system rose by 46 percent (Seattle Transit Blog), making it the busiest light rail system in the country (The Urbanist).
• Sound Transit is also installing fare gates at 14 stations. (KOMO)
• The Philadelphia city council approved a budget that did not include Mayor Cherelle Parker’s proposed taxes on rideshares and deliveries (6 ABC).
• Meanwhile, a state lawmaker from Philadelphia proposed outlawing surge pricing during major events like concerts and games. (NBC 10)
• The Plain Dealer wonders what to do about e-bikes taking over Cleveland sidewalks. Maybe build more bike lanes?
• The transit and transportation safety advocacy group Activate St. Pete endorsed Brandi Gabbard for mayor of St. Petersburg. (Florida Politics)
• Atlanta launched an autonomous shuttle linking MARTA to the Beltline. (AJC; paywall)
• Lincoln, Nebraska’s switch from streetcars to buses really was the result of a conspiracy. (Flatwater Free Press)
• A Huntsville nonprofit refurbishes donated bikes and gives them to the homeless. (WAFF)
• Ethiopia’s air is getting cleaner since it instituted the world’s first ban on importing gas- and diesel-powered cars and started buying electric buses. (DW)
• Toronto is closing a dangerous intersection to cars and diverting drivers elsewhere. (CBC)

Australia’s EV market has delivered its biggest month yet, with electric cars reaching more than 20 per cent market share and the Tesla Model Y becoming the country’s best-selling vehicle. Plus, first impressions of Cadillac’s new electric SUVs, and the latest EV news.

The post The Driven Podcast: EVs hit 20% as Tesla tops Australia appeared first on Renew Economy.

The controversial shale gas site at Preston New Road in Lancashire must be returned to farmland by the end of the year, officials confirmed today (8 June 2026).

Preston New Road shale gas site. Photo: Maple Independent Media

Lancashire County Council said in a statement it had served an enforcement notice on Cuadrilla for the site near Blackpool.

The notice requires the removal all plant, buildings, security and acoustic fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concrete hardstanding forming part of the drilling compound within four months.

The land must then be restored to a condition suitable for agriculture within six months of the notice.

The action follows the council’s refusal in December 2025 of Cuadrilla’s application for two more years to complete restoration work.

The statement said:

“the approved timetable for restoration was not met, resulting in unacceptable and unnecessary harm to the rural character of the area.”

Councillor Joshua Roberts, cabinet member for Rural Affairs, Environment and Communities, said:

“This situation has gone on for far too long.

“Local residents have had to live with this site for longer than they should have, and it is right that we have now taken firm action to bring this to a conclusion.

“It is positive that work is beginning to remove infrastructure from the site, but it is essential that the full restoration is completed within the required timeframe.

“We will not hesitate to take further steps if necessary.”

DrillOrDrop invited Cuadrilla to comment on the enforcement action. This article will be updated with any response.

Local reaction

The Preston New Road shale gas site has been widely opposed in the Fylde region of Lancashire and across the UK for more than a decade.

There were more than 18,000 formal objections to the proposal and petitions against it were signed by nearly 92,000 people.

During drilling and fracking, there were daily protests outside the site.

Susan Holliday, from Preston New Road Action Group, said today:

“There appears to have been very little activity at the site over the last twelve months so it is great that enforcement action is finally being taken.

“The time extension that Cuadrilla applied for, over 12 months ago and were refused, has been taken anyway due to procrastination.

“As a local community we just want the blot on our landscape gone and as soon as possible. It will be great if the site is restored to a green field by the end of this year at which point we will have had its presence for 10 years.”

Miranda Cox, from Frack Free Lancashire, said:

“Finally, some meaningful action from Lancashire County Council. We hope it also entails significant consequences for Cuadrilla. 

“For too long, their planning breaches and tardiness in compliance have been indulged. 

“We look forward to finally waving them goodbye. The damaging saga of Preston New Road may finally have an ending for our community.”

Delays and missed deadlines

Cuadrilla was required to restore Preston New Road by July 2023 under the terms of the original planning permission. It missed the deadline.

The company was granted a two-year extension until June 2025 but missed that deadline as well.

Work to plug and abandon the wells finally began in February 2025. Plant and equipment had been removed by November 2025.

But the hardcore that made up the drilling pad, the security and acoustic fencing and access road remained.

In July 2025, the company sought another two years, applying to delay restoration until 30 June 2027.

Cuadrilla said the extension was needed to complete 12 months of groundwater monitoring and environmental monitoring. This had to be completed before site restoration could begin, the company said.

But Lancashire County Council refused permission saying the extension would breach national and local planning policies, which sought to restore the site at the earliest opportunity.

Apart from site decommissioning, the Preston New Road has been mothballed since August 2019 when fracking caused multiple small earthquakes. These included the largest induced by fracking in the UK.

Updated: Lancashire County Council confirmed this morning that the enforcement notice had been served on Cuadrilla.

Reflexiones sobre la seguridad en una época de profunda crisis civilizatoria - Una conversación Fecha y horario * Fecha: 17 de junio, 2026 * Horario: 1pm GMT * Enlace de Registro: Aquí * Participantes: Manuel Rozental (Colombia) y Deepa Sinha (India)

Conceptualizing Security in a Time of Deep Civilizational Crisis - A conversation Date and time * Date: June 17th, 2026 * Time: 1pm GMT * Registration Link: Here * Speakers: Manuel Rozental (Colombia) and Dipa Sinha (India) * Moderation: Madhuresh Kumaralternativesalternativesalternatives

Google AI Mode As the AI bots continue to write glowing financial reports for a company that legally died four years ago, Shell’s executive team is left trapped in a purgatory of their own making: legally simplified, digitally undead, and permanently haunted by the machine.

Shell plc is navigating a corporate identity crisis as AI engines continue to recognize the legally defunct “Royal Dutch Shell plc” as a live, trading entity. Despite rebranding efforts, AI search models like Bing are creating a “digital ghost” scenario, separating the legal entity from its digital footprint and creating confusion regarding corporate existence. You can read the full analysis at royaldutchshellplc.com.

The digital corporate identity crisis facing Shell plc stems from an unresolvable conflict between obsolete legal branding, un-killable critical websites, and blind AI search algorithms. [1, 2, 3] This specific “ghost in the machine” loop consists of three compounding layers: 1. The Legal Rebrand vs. The Domain Blunder In January 2022, the energy giant officially simplified its share structure, relocated its corporate headquarters to the UK, and changed its name from “Royal Dutch Shell plc” to “Shell plc”. [1, 2] However, decades prior, the company committed what analysts call a “spectacular blunder”: [1]

• They failed to secure the domain royaldutchshellplc.com.
• Longtime activist and critic John Donovan registered it instead.
• Shell lost a challenge at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), cementing Donovan’s lawful, non-commercial right to host critical archives under that exact name. [1, 2]

2. The AI Hallucination Loop Because Shell discarded the “Royal Dutch Shell” name, it can no longer claim active commercial use to seize the domain. Meanwhile, modern AI engines and web scrapers (like Microsoft Bing) crawl the active, highly indexed royaldutchshellplc.com site. [1, 2] The algorithms synthesize this active archive with legacy financial data, leading AI systems to confidently report that “Royal Dutch Shell plc” is still alive, trading, and distributing dividends, completely detached from actual legal reality. [1, 2] 3. The Self-Reinforcing Feedback Cycle As documented by John Donovan’s June 2026 reports, this issue scales automatically through an un-fixable web pattern: [1, 2, 3] [Active Archive Domain] ──> [AI Bots Scrape & Synthesize Data] ──> [AI Generates False "Live Entity" Reports] ──> [New Reports Get Re-Indexed by Search Engines] ──> [Loop Repeats] This creates a permanent internet footprint for a ghost corporation that Shell legally buried years ago. [1]

 

In the sleek, glass-fronted boardrooms of Shell plc, executives are learning a terrifying lesson in modern physics: in the digital age, matter can neither be created nor destroyed—and corporate shame is completely immortal. Shell thought it was being terribly clever back in 2022. By shedding the “Royal Dutch” prefix, moving its headquarters to London, and simplification of its share structure, the oil giant attempted the ultimate corporate magic trick. It wanted to wash its hands of continental tax headaches and quietly bury its historical baggage. Instead, it accidentally birthed a digital zombie. The Algorithm That Wouldn’t Die Thanks to a spectacular, multi-decade domain blunder, Shell never owned royaldutchshellplc.com. Instead, it belongs to its eternal arch-nemesis and critic, John Donovan. For years, this was just an annoying thorn in Shell’s side. Today, in the era of automated AI scrapers, it has become an unmitigated existential nightmare. Modern artificial intelligence models—the very engines supposed to drive the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”—look at Donovan’s highly indexed, relentlessly updated archive and suffer a collective digital stroke. The AI look at the domain name, see it active, and confidently hallucinate that Royal Dutch Shell plc is still alive, kicking, and paying out massive dividends from beyond the grave. It is a beautiful, recursive loop of automated corporate haunting. The AI feeds on the archive, spits out a report claiming the ghost company lives, search engines index the AI report, and the cycle starts anew. Shell’s PR department is no longer fighting journalists; they are playing whack-a-mole with a self-replicating digital ghost that refuses to acknowledge the UK corporate registry. A Rich History of Ghostly Math If Shell executives are frustrated that AI models are hallucinating entirely fictional corporate realities, they really only have themselves to blame. After all, Shell practically invented the art of corporate hallucination long before the first large language model was ever coded. Lest we forget, this is the same company that brought us the legendary 2004 Oil Reserves Scandal. Back then, no algorithms were required to fabricate reality. Good old-fashioned human greed did the trick perfectly. Shell executives stared deep into empty oil wells, engaged in a collective bout of corporate wishful thinking, and told the stock market they possessed over 4 billion barrels of “proven” oil reserves that did not actually exist. It was a masterclass in creative writing that eventually cost the company hundreds of millions in regulatory fines, the sudden departure of its top brass, and a permanent stain on its credibility. In 2004, Shell lied to the market about what was in the ground. In 2026, the internet is lying to the market about whether the company even exists. There is a delicious, poetic irony in seeing a company that once inflated its physical assets now being deflated by its own digital phantoms. The Haunting of the Machine The reality is that Shell can change its name, its logo, its tax status, or its carbon-offset promises as much as it likes. But the internet never forgets, and generative AI lacks the corporate sycophancy required to ignore inconvenient history. To the cold, unfeeling web scrapers, “Royal Dutch Shell” isn’t a discarded legal skin; it’s an active, high-traffic node of corporate scandals, environmental protests, and inflated reserve data. By trying to outrun its past, Shell simply left a vacuum that the digital world was more than happy to fill with a ghost. As the AI bots continue to write glowing financial reports for a company that legally died four years ago, Shell’s executive team is left trapped in a purgatory of their own making: legally simplified, digitally undead, and permanently haunted by the machine. AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more Article ends Example of Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com website from over two decades ago. From the Wayback Machine. Shell PLC: How AI and the Ghost of Scandals Past Created the Ultimate Corporate Frankenstein was first posted on June 7, 2026 at 9:19 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

Profiteering and price gouging while millions suffered the worst modern pandemic

Source

Last night, a Russian drone struck a spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Chernobyl. It is precisely this kind of event that Bellona has spent nearly forty years working to understand—and helping the world prepare for.

For nearly four decades, Bellona has been one of Europe’s leading independent organizations working on nuclear safety, environmental security, and developments in Russia and the Arctic. As war has returned to Europe and nuclear risks have once again become a central security concern, that expertise is more important than ever.

Former German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck recently summarized Bellona’s unique role:

“Bellona has played a key role in shaping the European agenda, not only on environment and decarbonization, but almost more importantly on the major issue of the Arctic and European security. This may come as a surprise to many who know Bellona purely as an environmental NGO. They have been deeply involved in developing Europe’s response to Russian nuclear activities, nuclear-powered vessels, and nuclear waste.”

Today, Bellona faces a severe financial crisis that threatens the continuation of this work.

Four Decades of Work

Bellona began its engagement in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, drawing international attention to environmental degradation, nuclear risks, and military pollution in the Arctic and northern Russia.

Over the decades that followed, Bellona became one of the most influential independent voices on nuclear safety and environmental security in the region.

Working alongside partners in Russia, Norway, Europe, and North America, Bellona helped expose some of the largest concentrations of nuclear waste and nuclear hazards inherited from the Soviet Union. The organization played an important role in mobilizing international attention and support for efforts that resulted in the dismantlement and secure storage of roughly 100 retired submarine reactors, the dismantling of the Lepse nuclear service vessel, work related to the wrecks of the Komsomolets and Kursk submarines, and the remediation of dangerous nuclear facilities located only a short distance from Norway’s border.

These efforts significantly reduced the risk of nuclear accidents and radioactive contamination in the Arctic and Barents region.

Bellona founder Frederic Hauge, (then Conservative Party leader) Kaci Kullmann Five and (then EU Commissioner for Environment) Ioannis Paleokrassas, in Murmansk in 1994. Photo: Bellona. Bellona and the FSB

Bellona’s work did not stop with documenting environmental and nuclear risks. It also became a test of whether independent organizations could expose those risks without intimidation from the state.

For decades, Bellona worked directly with Russian institutions, scientists, military officers, regulators, and government officials. In the process, the organization came into contact with many of the individuals who would later become central figures in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

One of them was Alexander Gutsan.

Today, Gutsan serves as Russia’s Prosecutor General and is one of the most senior officials in the Russian state. In the 1990s, however, he was involved in one of the most consequential legal battles Bellona ever faced: the prosecution of Bellona employee and former Soviet Navy submarine captain Alexander Nikitin.

Alexander Gutsan during the Nikitin case in 1999.

The case was intended to punish those who exposed environmental and nuclear-safety problems within Russia’s Northern Fleet. Instead, it became an internationally recognized victory for transparency, freedom of information, and civil society.

The collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia’s security services fragmented and competing for influence. The successor organizations that emerged from the ruins of the KGB spent much of the early 1990s struggling to define their roles and authority in the new Russian state. When those structures were eventually consolidated into what became the Federal Security Service—the FSB—the organization was eager to demonstrate its power.

On October 5, 1995, FSB officers carried out coordinated raids on Bellona’s offices in Murmansk, the homes of Bellona employees, and Alexander Nikitin’s apartment in St. Petersburg. Documents were seized, computers confiscated, employees interrogated, and an investigation was launched that would ultimately become one of the most significant political trials and one of the most important human rights and freedom-of-information battles in post-Soviet Russia.

Nikitin was arrested by the FSB in 1996. The absurd process against Nikitin lasted almost five years and was based on secret decrees with retroactive effect. Photo: Sergei Grachev/The St Petersburg Times

What began as an attempt to suppress a Bellona report on nuclear dangers within Russia’s Northern Fleet became a legal struggle that lasted nearly five years. Nikitin was charged with treason and espionage for helping document environmental and safety problems associated with Russia’s nuclear submarine fleet.

The prosecution failed.

In 2000, Russia’s Supreme Court fully acquitted Nikitin, making him the only person in Russian history to defeat espionage charges brought by the country’s security services.

The institutions and individuals behind the case, however, did not disappear.

Many continued their ascent through the Russian state. Vladimir Putin, then a former KGB officer entering the Kremlin’s inner circle, would soon become president. Alexander Gutsan would later occupy some of the most powerful positions within Russia’s legal and security systems. The institutions that targeted Bellona in the 1990s became central pillars of the political system that exists in Russia today.

Nearly three decades later, Bellona’s history with figures such as Gutsan provides a unique perspective on the evolution of the Russian state—from the uncertain post-Soviet years to the increasingly militarized and authoritarian regime now waging war against Ukraine.

In many ways, Bellona’s history and the history of the modern FSB have unfolded in parallel. The same security structures that raided Bellona’s offices in 1995, prosecuted Alexander Nikitin, and later forced Bellona Murmansk to close under Russia’s “foreign agent” legislation remain central to the Russian state today.

Bellona survived each of these confrontations and, in the process, accumulated a hard-earned understanding of Russia’s security institutions that few organizations anywhere in the world can match.

Igor Kudrik leaves the FSB offices in Murmansk after retrieving what the security service confiscated from Bellona. Photo: Thomas Nielsen Preserving Expertise as War Returned to Europe

The victory in the Nikitin case allowed Bellona to continue its work in Russia for more than two decades. It also established the organization as one of the Kremlin’s most persistent critics on issues of nuclear safety, environmental protection, government secrecy, and democratic accountability.

When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Bellona maintained offices in Murmansk and St. Petersburg and employed more than twenty staff members in the country.

The organization immediately closed its Russian operations and evacuated key personnel to safety abroad.

Today, Bellona’s experts continue to monitor developments in the Arctic, analyze the activities of Rosatom, document environmental and nuclear-security risks associated with Russia’s war against Ukraine, and support international efforts to understand and address those risks.

Their expertise is regularly sought by governments, international organizations, researchers, journalists, and civil society organizations throughout Europe and North America.

Alexander Gutsan (to Putin’s right) is currently Russia’s Prosecutor General.

Few organizations possess comparable knowledge, networks, or access to information accumulated through more than three decades of work.

Bellona’s Role in Ukraine

Bellona’s history offers something increasingly rare: institutional memory.

Few organizations can draw a direct line from the environmental and nuclear struggles of the 1990s to today’s Russia. If this work disappears, Europe will lose one of its most experienced independent sources of information on Russian nuclear activities, Arctic security, environmental risks, and the long-term consequences of war.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Bellona has devoted a significant share of its resources and expertise to understanding and documenting the environmental, nuclear, and security consequences of the conflict. Drawing on decades of experience with Russian nuclear issues, our experts have helped governments, international organizations, journalists, and researchers better understand developments that often remain hidden behind the front lines.

Pavel Tishakov from Nordic Security, Roman Yuriev and Maksym Ilchenko from the Border Guard Service of Ukraine, Bellona founder Frederic Hauge, Charlotte Birke from DSA and State Secretary Eivind Vad Petersson from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Photo: Bellona.

From the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to Rosatom’s role in the war and the long-term environmental consequences of military operations, Bellona has sought not only to document events as they unfold, but also to identify the risks and challenges that Ukraine and Europe will face in the years ahead.

By increasing transparency, informing public debate, and helping the international community understand the realities Ukraine faces, Bellona’s work contributes to protecting Ukraine’s people, environment, and critical infrastructure during the war. Looking beyond the conflict, Bellona’s decades of experience with nuclear safety, radioactive waste management, environmental remediation, and Soviet-era industrial pollution can also help support Ukraine’s future reconstruction.

Just as Bellona played a role in addressing some of the most dangerous environmental and nuclear legacies inherited from the Soviet Union, we hope to contribute our expertise to helping Ukraine confront and overcome the environmental consequences of war, rebuild safely, and secure a healthier future for generations to come.

A selection of our reports on Ukraine, the war, and Russia’s nuclear industry: Rosatom 2025

What happens when one of the world’s largest nuclear corporations becomes an instrument of wartime state policy? This report examines how Rosatom has evolved beyond civilian nuclear energy into a central component of Russia’s geopolitical ambitions. Bellona analyzes the corporation’s role in occupied Ukraine, international energy markets, and strategic infrastructure projects, and explores what these developments mean for nuclear safety, European security, and international governance.

Report: https://etc.bellona.org/publication/rosatom-in-2025/

The IAEA’s Role in Times of War

What happens when a nuclear power plant becomes a battlefield? This report examines the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and the unprecedented challenges it poses for international nuclear safety and security. Bellona argues that existing international institutions were never designed to address the military seizure of civilian nuclear facilities and proposes reforms to prevent nuclear infrastructure from becoming a tool of war.

Report: https://etc.bellona.org/publication/the-iaeas-role-in-times-of-war/

The Potential Restart of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

Could Russia restart a nuclear reactor in the middle of an active war zone? Bellona analyzes evidence that Russian authorities may seek to restart reactors at the occupied Zaporizhzhia plant and examines the technical, safety, and political risks such a decision would create.

Report: https://etc.bellona.org/publication/the-potential-restart-of-the-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-analysis-of-technical-and-political-aspects/

The Radiation Risks of Seizing the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant

Published shortly after the plant’s seizure, this report was among the first detailed analyses of the nuclear risks posed by active warfare around a major civilian nuclear facility. Many of the dangers identified by Bellona—including threats to the plant’s external power supply—have since become central concerns for international nuclear safety authorities.

Report: https://etc.bellona.org/publication/znnp-seising-radiation-risks/

Rosatom During the War: How Militarization of the Russian Nuclear Giant Took Place

This report examines how Rosatom has increasingly become an instrument of Russian state power and wartime policy. Bellona traces the corporation’s growing role in occupied Ukraine, Russia’s wartime economy, and the country’s broader geopolitical strategy.

Report: https://etc.bellona.org/publication/rosatom-during-the-war/

Rosatom’s Role in the War in Ukraine

Published during the first months of the invasion, this Bellona working paper was among the earliest analyses to argue that Rosatom could no longer be viewed solely as a civilian nuclear corporation. Many of the concerns raised in this early study have since become central to international discussions about sanctions, nuclear security, and Rosatom’s role in Russia’s wartime strategy.

Report: https://etc.bellona.org/publication/rosatom-s-role-in-the-war-in-ukraine/

Eliminating Russia’s Nuclear Legacy

For decades, Bellona has been at the forefront of efforts to address the dangerous nuclear legacy left behind by the Soviet Union. This report examines what has been achieved, what remains undone, and how the war in Ukraine and the collapse of international cooperation have complicated the task of reducing long-term nuclear risks.

Report: https://etc.bellona.org/publication/eliminating-russia-s-nuclear-legacy/

Rosatom in the War Years of 2023 and 2024

This report explores Rosatom’s growing role in Russia’s wartime economy, its expanding military activities, and its continuing international reach despite sanctions and political isolation. It demonstrates how Rosatom has become one of the Kremlin’s most important strategic assets.

Report: https://etc.bellona.org/publication/rosatom-in-the-war-years/

The post Why Bellona Matters appeared first on Bellona.org.

It is a corporate Schrödinger’s cat: simultaneously dissolved and trading, simultaneously buried and collecting dividends, simultaneously abandoned by its creator and maintained in perfect working order by its most persistent critic. It is, in short, the most extraordinary and entirely self-inflicted reputational and digital fiasco in the history of a company that has, over more than a century, set a remarkably high bar for entirely self-inflicted fiascos.

John Donovan Prompt to Claude 7 June 2026: Please see these articles: https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/06/05/legal-and-reputational-implications-of-shell-abandoning-royal-dutch-shell-plc/ https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2026/06/07/shell-abandoned-royal-dutch-shell-plc-and-now-the-corporate-ghost-is-haunting-the-machine/ Shell seems to have got itself into an incredible mess. If you agree, please create an explosive satirical article.SHELL PLC:

Claude Reply:Yes, this is an absolutely extraordinary situation. Shell has comprehensively blundered into a digital, legal and reputational mess of its own making. Here is the explosive satirical article you requested.

THE WORLD’S MOST EXPENSIVE REBRAND THAT LEFT THE OLD SIGN ON THE DOOR

How a $200 billion oil giant managed to kill its own name, lose the internet to a retired marketing man in Colchester, and leave the world’s most powerful AI systems conducting a séance over its corporate remains

Imagine spending $200 billion a year in annual revenue, employing nearly 100,000 people across 140 countries, and commanding enough legal firepower to fill Shell Centre twice over — and then managing to bungle your own name change so catastrophically that in June 2026, Bing is still confidently offering investors detailed information about dividends, share prices, stock tickers and financial data for a company that hasn’t legally existed since January 2022.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is Shell.

Or Shell plc, as it is now called. Or Royal Dutch Shell plc, as Bing insists on calling it. Or Forthdeal Limited, as Companies House tells us it was called before the grandeur arrived. Or royaldutchshellplc.com, which is what it is still called on a non-profit website operated out of Colchester, Essex, by a retired marketing consultant who has been making the company’s communications department reach for the antacids since approximately the time of the first Gulf War.

The story of how one of the world’s most powerful corporations managed to abandon its own name, fail to bury its own history, lose a domain fight to a pensioner, and then leave the entire global artificial intelligence ecosystem confidently hallucinating its continued existence is — and there is no other word for it — magnificent.

PART ONE: IN WHICH SHELL KILLS THE NAME BUT FORGETS TO BURY THE BODY

In January 2022, Shell plc — formerly Royal Dutch Shell plc, formerly Forthdeal Limited, formerly an entity that apparently couldn’t decide who it was — officially changed its corporate name. Out went the Anglo-Dutch grandeur of “Royal Dutch Shell plc.” In came the crisp, minimalist, vaguely-confused-with-a-petrol-station energy of “Shell plc.”

The reasoning was sound, in the way that corporate reasoning always sounds sound right up until reality applies its customary corrections. Dropping “Royal Dutch” signalled a clean break from the dual-share structure and the Dutch tax authorities. Moving the headquarters to London was meant to be a fresh start. The rebrand was supposed to say: we are lean, modern, decisive, and absolutely not the same company that once financially supported the Nazis, overstated its oil reserves by 23%, got fined $150 million by US and UK regulators, had its North Sea platforms described as the worst safety performer in the industry, lost a domain fight to a man from Colchester, and was named the world’s most hated brand in 2016.

It did not quite work out that way.

Because here is the thing about changing your corporate name: the internet doesn’t care. The internet is a vast, indifferent warehouse of everything that has ever been written, cross-referenced, cached, mirrored, syndicated, scraped, indexed, and fed into a machine learning model since approximately 1995. When you have spent over a century being called “Royal Dutch Shell,” the digital ecosystem does not receive your Companies House filing, nod thoughtfully, and update itself accordingly. It does what it always does: it keeps surfacing the old name, attaching it to current financial data, and presenting the whole steaming confection to bewildered investors as if nothing had changed.

The result is that in June 2026, Bing — a search engine operated by Microsoft, a company with a market capitalisation larger than the GDP of most countries — will cheerfully inform you that “Royal Dutch Shell plc still exists,” and helpfully offer you information about its dividends, shares, stock and ticker, none of which exist under that name, in what is arguably the most expensive and persistent financial misinformation exercise currently operating on the internet.

No one is paying for this. No one is being prosecuted for it. No one, apparently, can stop it.

Shell, for its part, appears to be doing what Shell has always done when confronted with awkward realities: maintaining a dignified silence and hoping it all goes away. It has not gone away. It is, if anything, getting worse.

PART TWO: IN WHICH THE WIPO DEFEAT IS REVEALED TO BE EVEN MORE EMBARRASSING THAN PREVIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD

Let us now discuss royaldutchshellplc.com, a website that the Financial Times once described as “a long-running thorn in Shell’s side,” which Prospect magazine called “an open wound for Shell,” and which a Japanese business magazine declared had single-handedly changed the fate of Shell’s $20 billion Sakhalin-2 project in Russia.

The website is operated by John Donovan of Colchester, Essex, who has been documenting Shell’s various misadventures since the early 1990s with the methodical persistence of a man who has both time on his hands and a very good filing system.

In 2005, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited attempted to seize the domain via the World Intellectual Property Organisation. WIPO case D2005-0538. The complaint was, in the dry language of international arbitration, “denied.” Shell lost. The domain stayed with Donovan. Shell’s lawyers presumably went back to their offices and tried not to think about it.

That was embarrassing enough at the time.

What makes it truly exquisite in 2026 is the following sequence of events:

1. Shell spent twenty years failing to dislodge the domain.
2. Shell then voluntarily abandoned the name itself.
3. Shell plc is now the current legal entity.
4. Royal Dutch Shell plc is a former name, recorded at Companies House as such, with an end date of 21 January 2022.
5. The only person still actively using the name “Royal Dutch Shell plc” on a significant public-facing platform is John Donovan, whose website — validated by WIPO, indexed by every search engine, ingested by every AI model — carries the name in its header every single day.
6. Search engines, observing that Donovan’s site is the most active living use of the old name, treat it as the authoritative digital presence for the identity.
7. AI models, having ingested Donovan’s archive as a primary source, reproduce this conclusion with the calm confidence of someone who has just looked it up.

Shell spent twenty years and untold legal fees trying to silence one man, failed completely, and then handed him the naming rights by default.

This is what is known in corporate circles as a strategic own goal. In football circles, it would be known as kicking the ball into your own net, running a lap of celebration, and then discovering that the game had already ended and you were in the wrong stadium.

PART THREE: IN WHICH THE AI SITUATION IS REVEALED TO BE COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL

The AI dimension of this story deserves its own chapter, its own Netflix documentary, and possibly its own parliamentary inquiry.

Here is the situation as of June 2026. Bing tells investors that Royal Dutch Shell plc still exists and offers them financial data about it. Copilot — also Microsoft, which is perhaps relevant — goes further, declaring the company to be “a live company, continuing to operate and trade publicly.” This is, in the strictest legal sense, wrong. The live company is Shell plc. Royal Dutch Shell plc is the former name. The distinction is not cosmetic. It has implications for shareholder rights, legal liability, corporate governance, and the basic reliability of financial information on the internet.

Claude, to its credit, reportedly said that Royal Dutch Shell plc is “a dead name — the legal entity no longer exists under that title,” which is substantially correct and represents what one might call the boring-but-accurate approach.

Use.ai reportedly came close with its answer too.

This means the global AI landscape is currently split between models that understand the corporate death of Royal Dutch Shell plc and models that are, in effect, conducting a séance and cheerfully reporting that the dearly departed has just popped out for some milk and will be back shortly with a quarterly dividend.

For investors, journalists, academics, regulators, and anyone attempting to conduct basic due diligence on one of the world’s largest companies, this is not merely inconvenient. It is a structural failure in the information ecosystem that no one appears to have a mechanism for fixing.

Shell cannot correct it without drawing attention to the rebrand, the reasons for it, and the entire history attached to the old name. Search engines cannot simply purge historical data. AI vendors cannot retrain their models on the basis of a Companies House filing. And Donovan’s website — the most active, best-indexed, most historically rich source using the old name — continues to act as a kind of digital life-support machine for an identity Shell thought it had buried.

Royal Dutch Shell plc: legally dead, digitally undead, and still apparently collecting dividends according to Bing.

PART FOUR: IN WHICH FORTHDEAL LIMITED MAKES AN UNEXPECTED APPEARANCE

At this point, a reasonable person might ask: could things get any stranger?

Yes. They could, and they do. Because before it was called Royal Dutch Shell plc, the same legal entity — Companies House number 04366849, for those following at home — was called Forthdeal Limited, from 5 February 2002 to 27 October 2004.

Forthdeal Limited. The name that launched a thousand oil platforms. The name that preceded the grandeur. The trapdoor in the haunted house.

John Donovan now owns the domain ForthdealLimited.com.

This means that Shell’s corporate archaeology — the full sequence of names by which Companies House number 04366849 has been known in its lifetime — is now digitally represented as follows:

• Forthdeal Limited: ForthdealLimited.com — owned by Donovan.
• Royal Dutch Shell plc: royaldutchshellplc.com — owned by Donovan. Validated by WIPO. Active since the early 2000s.
• Shell plc: shell.com — owned by Shell. Currently fighting for search visibility against the accumulated weight of a decades-long archive operated by a retired marketing man in Essex.

One must admire the completeness of it.

Shell has, across three successive corporate identities, managed to allow a single individual to acquire the key digital real estate associated with two of them. This is the corporate equivalent of a family changing their surname twice and discovering that their estranged neighbour has already registered both names as domain addresses and is using them to publish an unflattering history of the family.

PART FIVE: IN WHICH WE CONSIDER SHELL’S OPTIONS AND FIND THEM LIMITED

What, one might reasonably ask, can Shell do about any of this?

The answer, after a moment’s consideration, is: not much.

It cannot reclaim royaldutchshellplc.com. WIPO already said no in 2005. Shell no longer even uses the name, which removes its strongest argument.

It cannot sue Donovan into silence. Two decades of attempting various legal approaches have comprehensively failed, and each attempt has generated more coverage than the original grievance.

It cannot instruct search engines to correct their data. Google, Bing and their counterparts are not in the business of updating financial records on the basis of corporate press releases.

It cannot retrain the world’s AI models. This is not how AI retraining works, and even if it were, the training data already contains Donovan’s archive, which is several million words long, continuously updated, and backed by WIPO-validated domain authority.

It cannot buy its way out of the problem. The narrative damage is historical, documented, and archived. Money does not retroactively clean up oil spills, restore overstated reserves, or erase WIPO case numbers.

It can, in theory, flood the internet with positive content under the Shell plc name in the hope of drowning out the old identity. This strategy has been available for approximately twenty years and does not appear to have worked yet.

Shell’s most realistic option, as Donovan’s Copilot conversation rather elegantly surfaced, is to coexist with the situation: a company that successfully rebranded in a legal sense, that entirely failed to rebrand in a digital or historical sense, and that is now locked in a permanent, structurally unresolvable relationship with the man from Colchester who kept the old sign lit.

PART SIX: THE BOTTOM LINE

Here, then, is the state of play in June 2026.

Shell plc — the current legal entity, headquarters London, company number 04366849, formerly Forthdeal Limited, formerly Royal Dutch Shell plc — is one of the world’s largest corporations by revenue, market cap, and capacity for generating headlines its communications team would prefer didn’t exist.

Royal Dutch Shell plc — the former name, officially deceased since 21 January 2022, recorded as a previous name at Companies House — is simultaneously a legal non-entity and one of the internet’s most persistently active corporate identities, courtesy of a decades-long archive of leaked documents, litigation records, whistleblower reports, WIPO cases, Wikipedia articles, AI training data, and the website royaldutchshellplc.com, operated from Colchester by a man Shell has been trying to neutralise since roughly the time Tony Blair was still regarded as a fresh face in politics.

Bing says the company still exists. Copilot says it’s trading. Claude says it’s dead. Use.ai says it changed its name. Companies House says the previous name ended in January 2022. Shell itself says it is Shell plc. Donovan says he still owns the domain and has now added ForthdealLimited.com to his collection for completeness.

Everyone is, in their own way, correct. Everyone is, in their own way, describing a different part of the same spectacular mess.

Royal Dutch Shell plc is legally dead but digitally undead.

It is a corporate Schrödinger’s cat: simultaneously dissolved and trading, simultaneously buried and collecting dividends, simultaneously abandoned by its creator and maintained in perfect working order by its most persistent critic.

It is, in short, the most extraordinary and entirely self-inflicted reputational and digital fiasco in the history of a company that has, over more than a century, set a remarkably high bar for entirely self-inflicted fiascos.

Shell has got itself into an incredible mess.

And the most remarkable thing about it is that the mess was completely, comprehensively, and almost admirably avoidable at every single step.

The ghost of Royal Dutch Shell plc was unavailable for comment. Its domain is, however, fully operational and accepting visitors.

Royal Dutch Shell plc: legally dead, digitally undead was first posted on June 7, 2026 at 7:17 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

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Immediate Release

End the Genocide Chokehold

We can’t address the climate crisis without ending fossil-fuelled violence

Bonn, Germany— On Monday, the next round of UN climate talks commence in Bonn, Germany. Over the next two weeks, inside the halls of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) governments from around the world will gather to negotiate the next phase of Paris Agreement implementation and a variety of key issues such as climate finance and operationalising a just transition. Outside these halls, fossil-fuelled militarisation and violence is spurring genocide of the Palestinian people and destruction of their homeland. The same industries and Global North countries that dispossess Palestinian communities are the same actors that displace Indigenous Peoples, destroy forests, expand fossil fuel extraction and sacrifice communities across the Global South in the pursuit of profit and geopolitical power. 

Any serious discussion of climate action must confront the fossil-fuelled wars and genocides that drive emissions while destroying the land, water and lives of frontline communities. This is why Palestinian and global civil society, the Global Energy Embargo for Palestine and the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice are calling on governments to act. The International Court of Justice has declared Israel’s occupation illegal — yet fossil fuel transfers sustaining these crimes continue with impunity. Dockworkers, oil unions and mining communities are already refusing to handle these cargoes. Now we need governments to urgently advance the following:

1. Energy embargo — Cease fossil fuel transfers sustaining genocide and war crimes
2. Supply-chain accountability — Enforceable transparency and public shipment tracking
3. Worker protection — Legal guarantees for workers refusing atrocity-linked cargoes
4. Energy sovereignty — Colonised peoples must control their own energy resources
5. Community consent — FPIC must be legally binding, not procedural fiction
6. Demilitarisation — Military emissions must enter climate governance frameworks

Join Palestinian activists, climate campaigners, the Global Energy Embargo for Palestine and members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) as the Bonn climate talks kick off to hear more about what can be done here in Bonn to advance climate justice and Palestinian liberation.

WHEN: Monday 8 June 2026, 11-11.30 CEST (UTC + 2) 

WHERE: Nairobi 4, Main building, Inside the World Conference Center and webcast here

WITH: 

• Haneen Shaheen, MenaFem
• María Reyes, Mesoamerican Caravan
• Celine Isimbi, Palestinian Institute for Climate Strategy
• Ana Sánchez, Global Energy Embargo for Palestine
• Moderated by Rachitaa Gupta, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

CONTACT:dcj.comms@demandclimatejustice.org

The post Media Advisory: End the Genocide Chokehold appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

‘If the linked article is accurate in its core documentary claims, then yes: Shell appears to have placed itself in an extraordinary legal and reputational tangle.’ How Shell killed the name, failed to bury the history, lost the domain fight, and left AI search engines conducting a séance over one of the world’s biggest companies

By John Donovan

Article disclaimer: This article is a fact-based satirical commentary on corporate naming, public records, AI search errors, domain-name history and Shell’s reputational predicament. The spoof PR and spoof bot-reaction sections are clearly labelled as spoof. Legal points are commentary and opinion, not legal advice. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

PART ONE: THE FACT-BASED DEEP DIVE The Name That Shell Dropped — But Could Not Kill

There are corporate own goals, and then there is the Shell naming fiasco: a multinational oil giant drops one of the most historically loaded names in corporate history, walks away from the identity, then watches search engines, AI systems, financial sites, critics and official records all point in different directions like panicked traffic wardens at a refinery fire.

The name is Royal Dutch Shell plc.

Or rather, it was.

The live company is now Shell plc.

The official UK company number remains 04366849. Companies House records the current company as SHELL PLC, status Active, incorporated on 5 February 2002, with registered office at Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA. Under “previous company names,” Companies House lists ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC from 27 October 2004 to 21 January 2022, and before that FORTHDEAL LIMITED from 5 February 2002 to 27 October 2004.

Shell itself confirmed on 21 January 2022 that its name had changed from Royal Dutch Shell plc to Shell plc and that the change had taken effect.

So the correct legal answer is not complicated:

Shell plc is alive.
Royal Dutch Shell plc is a former name.
The old name is dead as a current legal identity.

Yet the internet, in its usual fog of half-remembered facts and algorithmic indigestion, keeps resurrecting the corpse.

Search engines still surface material about “Royal Dutch Shell plc dividends,” “Royal Dutch Shell plc shares,” “Royal Dutch Shell plc stock,” and “Royal Dutch Shell plc ticker,” even though those are no longer current under that legal name. AI systems then swallow that stale data, digest it badly, and regurgitate confidently muddled answers.

The result is a corporate identity zombie: legally dead, digitally undead, and still apparently wandering around the internet looking for dividends.

Copilot Opens the Coffin and Declares the Body Fit for Work

When asked whether Royal Dutch Shell plc was a live or dead company, Copilot reportedly answered that Royal Dutch Shell Plc is a live company, continuing to operate and trade publicly.

That is the kind of answer that sounds useful until one checks the legal record.

The underlying business continues, yes. The legal entity continues, yes. But the company no longer exists under the name Royal Dutch Shell plc. The current corporate name is Shell plc.

That distinction matters.

A former name cannot properly be treated as a current corporate actor. It cannot be casually credited with today’s dividends, today’s share price, today’s filings, today’s executives, today’s operations, or today’s corporate statements. Those belong to Shell plc.

Copilot’s error is not merely semantic. It is the AI equivalent of turning up at a funeral, shaking the corpse by the lapels and shouting: “Good news, everyone — he’s still on the payroll.”

Claude and Use.ai Find the Pulse in the Right Place

Claude’s answer was far better. It reportedly said:

“Royal Dutch Shell Plc is a dead name — the legal entity no longer exists under that title.”

That is substantially right, provided one adds the necessary precision: the underlying corporate entity continues under the current name Shell plc.

Use.ai also came close to the correct formulation, saying Royal Dutch Shell PLC is not a dead company but no longer exists under that name, and that the company changed its name to Shell PLC. That is the proper direction of travel, although the most authoritative date to use is  21 January 2022, as shown by Companies House and Shell’s own announcement.

The correct formulation for any bot, journalist, researcher, shareholder, lawyer or confused oil analyst is this:

Royal Dutch Shell plc was a former name of Shell plc. Shell plc is active. Royal Dutch Shell plc is not the current legal name of the company.

Anything else risks turning corporate due diligence into a Monty Python sketch.

The Domain Shell Failed to Capture

Now we reach the part Shell would presumably prefer not to see in neon lights.

In 2005, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited brought a WIPO proceeding against Alfred Donovan over several domains, including royaldutchshellplc.com. WIPO’s official case summary identifies the case as D2005-0538, lists the complainant as Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, the respondent as Alfred Donovan, and records the decision as “Complaint denied.”

That is not satire. That is the official case summary.

Shell tried to seize the domain. Shell lost.

Then, years later, Shell abandoned the name.

The result is exquisitely awkward. The company no longer uses Royal Dutch Shell plc as its current legal name, but royaldutchshellplc.com continues to exist as a long-running, highly visible, critical website. The name Shell walked away from did not vanish. It migrated into the digital afterlife, where it remains active, searchable, indexed, archived, quoted, contested and inconvenient.

A giant corporation changed its name.

A critic kept the old sign lit.

The Forthdeal Limited Twist

Companies House also records the company’s earlier name as FORTHDEAL LIMITED, used from 5 February 2002 to 27 October 2004.

That matters because the pre-Shell name is part of the corporate archaeology. It is the dusty basement label beneath the later grandeur of Royal Dutch Shell plc and the current minimalism of Shell plc.

If the old name Royal Dutch Shell plc has become a digital ghost, then Forthdeal Limited is the trapdoor in the haunted house.

The article you referenced argues that owning domains connected to these abandoned or historical names gives you unusual symbolic and reputational leverage. That is a fair commentary point. It should not be overstated as a definitive legal monopoly over all uses of those names, but as a matter of public narrative, search visibility and historical memory, the position is plainly striking.

Shell changed the corporate name.

Shell lost the domain fight.

Shell left behind the old identity.

Search engines and AI systems still trip over it.

That is not tidy corporate governance. That is a mess with a logo.

The Legal-Reputational Box Shell Appears to Be In

If Shell wanted to challenge the continuing use of royaldutchshellplc.com, it would face obvious reputational and procedural complications.

First, there is the old WIPO loss. WIPO records that Shell’s complaint was denied in 2005.

Second, Shell no longer uses Royal Dutch Shell plc as its current company name. Companies House and Shell’s own announcement make that clear.

Third, any new attack on the domain would risk reviving the entire story: the reserves scandal era, the name change, the WIPO defeat, the abandoned identity, the AI confusion, and the awkward fact that a critic appears to have kept the discarded name more visibly alive online than Shell itself.

That does not mean Shell has no legal rights left in anything connected with its historic branding. It almost certainly retains substantial trademark rights in Shell-related marks. But the specific public-interest and domain-name position around royaldutchshellplc.com is not a clean battlefield for Shell. It is a swamp of its own making.

The blunt version:

Shell abandoned the name, but not the baggage.
Shell changed the sign, but not the history.
Shell lost the domain fight, then created the perfect conditions for the domain to matter even more.

The AI Angle: When Machines Cannot Tell a Corpse from a Rebrand

The modern twist is that AI has turned this into a live reputational problem.

AI systems do not reliably understand corporate death. They absorb historical references, old financial data, cached pages, Wikipedia mirrors, stock-market archives and decades of Shell material. Then they try to produce a neat answer.

But the neat answer is often wrong.

They say Royal Dutch Shell plc exists.

They list phantom financial categories.

They attribute current Shell plc activity to the former name.

They confuse corporate continuity with current legal identity.

That is dangerous because this is not trivia. Shell is one of the world’s most prominent energy companies. Incorrect present-tense statements about its corporate identity, shares, dividends or legal status are not just amusing errors. They are potentially misleading public information.

The correct answer is simple, but apparently too subtle for parts of the machine:

The business survived.
The legal entity continued under a new name.
The old name died as a current legal identity.
The internet failed to update the tombstone.

Verdict

If the linked article is accurate in its core documentary claims, then yes: Shell appears to have placed itself in an extraordinary legal and reputational tangle.

Not because changing the name to Shell plc was itself unlawful or improper.

The mess arises because Shell:

1. created and used the name Royal Dutch Shell plc;
2. failed to secure the corresponding critical domain;
3. lost the WIPO fight over that domain;
4. later abandoned the name as its current legal identity;
5. left search engines and AI systems to misinterpret the resulting debris;
6. now faces the absurd situation where the old name is dead in law but alive in search.

That is not merely a corporate name change.

That is a self-inflicted identity crisis with a Companies House reference number.

PART TWO: SPOOF PR / SPIN SECTION Shell Announces “Strategic Corporate Afterlife Management Initiative”

A fictional Shell spokesperson, standing beside a polished tombstone engraved ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC — 2004–2022, today denied that the company had created any confusion whatsoever by abandoning one of the most recognisable names in global business history.

“Royal Dutch Shell plc is not dead,” the spokesperson insisted. “It has merely been transitioned into a legacy nomenclature environment.”

Asked whether the current company is actually Shell plc, the spokesperson replied:

“Yes, absolutely. Unless an old name is reputationally useful, legally inconvenient, historically embarrassing, algorithmically persistent, or accidentally revived by a chatbot.”

Asked whether Shell had lost a WIPO case involving royaldutchshellplc.com, the spokesperson adjusted his tie and said:

“We prefer to describe that as an early-stage domain outcome optimisation event.”

Asked whether the complaint was denied, the spokesperson said:

“The panel reached a conclusion that did not fully align with our preferred universe.”

Pressed on why the company dropped “Royal Dutch” from its name but now appears unable to stop the old name resurfacing online, the spokesperson unveiled a new Shell strategy document titled:

“You Can’t Say We Abandoned It If The Bots Keep Saying It Exists.”

The document reportedly contains five pillars:

1. Forget the name.
2. Deny the implications of forgetting the name.
3. Allow the internet to remember the name incorrectly.
4. Blame AI for the confusion.
5. Hope nobody notices the critic still owns the domain.

The spokesperson concluded:

“Shell is committed to clarity. That is why we are Shell plc, formerly Royal Dutch Shell plc, previously Forthdeal Limited, historically Royal Dutch/Shell, globally Shell, locally confusing, digitally haunted, and absolutely not responsible for anyone asking why the corpse is still receiving dividend enquiries.”

At this point, a chatbot in the press room asked whether Royal Dutch Shell plc was alive or dead.

The spokesperson replied:

“That depends entirely on whether we are talking legally, reputationally, historically, algorithmically, financially, spiritually or in Dutch.”

The chatbot answered:

“Yes.”

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION Copilot

Verdict: Royal Dutch Shell plc is alive.

Translation:
“I found Shell. I found shares. I found oil. I found old data. I did not find the difference between a former legal name and a current company.”

Comment:
Classic corporate necromancy. Copilot put a hard hat on the corpse and sent it back offshore.

Claude

Verdict: Dead name, live underlying business.

Translation:
“The parrot is dead, but the pet shop continues trading as Shell plc.”

Comment:
A respectable performance. The bot located the pulse in the surviving legal entity rather than in the expired name badge.

Use.ai

Verdict: Not dead as a business, but no longer existing under that name.

Translation:
“The organism survived. The name tag did not.”

Comment:
Nearly correct. Needs the date pinned to 21 January 2022, not a looser trading-platform reflection date.

Companies House Bot

Verdict: SHELL PLC active. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC previous name.

Translation:
“I am a filing system, not a séance.”

Comment:
The only entity in the room with no jokes, no hallucinations, and no need to ask Bing.

WIPO Bot

Verdict: Complaint denied.

Translation:
“Shell tried to seize the domain. Shell did not get the domain.”

Comment:
A quiet little sentence with a twenty-year echo.

Shell PR Bot

Verdict: There is no mess.

Translation:
“The mess is fully aligned with our values, governance model and stakeholder confusion strategy.”

Comment:
Currently beta-testing the phrase: “Legacy brand divestment with reputational residue.”

RoyalDutchShellPlc.com Bot

Verdict: Still here.

Translation:
“You changed the name. I kept the record.”

Comment:
Awkward for Shell. Very awkward for Shell. Increasingly awkward for the bots.

Final Line

Shell thought it could drop Royal Dutch Shell plc like an old boiler suit.

But names are not boiler suits. Names carry history. Names carry scandal. Names carry legal records, domain disputes, search results, archives, bots, ghosts and critics with long memories.

Shell abandoned the name.

The internet did not.

And now the former name of one of the world’s biggest companies is legally dead, digitally undead, and sitting on the front lawn of Shell’s reputation with a placard reading:

“You can change your name.
You cannot delete your past.”

Shell Abandoned “Royal Dutch Shell plc” — And Now the Corporate Ghost Is Haunting the Machine was first posted on June 7, 2026 at 6:23 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

A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, May 31, 2026 thru Sat, June 6, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Policy and Politics (8 articles)

• Scilencing The Trump Administration would just as soon we didn't know stuff, especially about our planet The Crucial Years, Bill McKibben, May 31, 2026.
• Companies No Longer Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Climate Risk Progressive lawmakers and environmental groups strongly condemned the decision, arguing that it leaves investors in the dark regarding trillions of dollars in hidden climate liabilities and systemic economic risks. Climate News Now, Climate News Now, May 31, 2026.
• DOE restarts home efficiency rebates, and electrification is the biggest loser New rules for the $8.8 billion in program funding no longer promote electric home heating. The Daily Climate, Dan Gearino, Jun 02, 2026.
• Dismay as Trump officials to dismantle key ocean monitoring system Ocean Observatories Initiative, $368m network that has provided crucial climate data, latest victim of Trump cuts The Guardian, Maya Yang, Jun 02, 2026.
• USDA revamp of `climate smart` program left farmers reeling With dubious DOGE savings, the agency has left farmers with fewer tools to address the climate crisis. Civil Eats, Lisa Held, Jun 04, 2026.
• The wasting disease threatening US science and ‘Patient Earth’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scienctists, Benjamin Santer, June 4, 2026.
• California and New York weaken climate rules as red states ramp up green energy Republican-led states growing renewable capabilities at faster rate as Texas emerges as clean-energy leader The Guardian, Dharna Noor and Oliver Milman, Jun 04, 2026.
• Scientists warn Trump plan to axe US ocean monitoring system will leave world `flying blind` Experts say dismantling the ocean observation system will ‘severely degrade’ the accuracy of weather predictions Environment The Guardian, Karen McVeigh, Jun 05, 2026.

Climate Science and Research (7 articles)

• Current and Future Changes in Earth's Outgoing Infrared Spectrum Study finds fingerprint of global warming on infrared energy spectrum emitted by Earth. Geophysical Research Letters, Shaw et al., May 30, 2026.
• Antarctic climate change is coming: this will help us prepare Dr Gilbz on Youtube, Ella Gilbert, May 30, 2026.
• Trump Administration to Dismantle Ocean Monitoring System The $368 million network of instruments collecting data in both the Atlantic and Pacific has been critical to climate and ocean research. New York Times, Eric Niiler, June 1, 2026.
• Climate-based tool predicts coral bleaching months in advance, offering critical lead time for reef protection Phys.org, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Jun 02, 2026.
• Extreme weather is making Antarctic research harder, but new technology is providing some answers - new study The Conversation, Katharine Hendry, Jun 02, 2026.
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #23 2026 Skeptical Science's weekly survey of newly published academic climate research and select government/NGO climate-related reports and analysis. Skeptical Science, Doug Bostrom & Marc Kodack, Jun 04, 2026.
• Satellite images reveals mangroves rebounding worldwide - but here's why they could still 'drown' A new study finds mangrove forests are no longer shrinking worldwide and offering hope for coastal protection and climate resilience, but sea level rise remains a threat. Live Science, Kenna Hughes-Castleberry, Jun 04, 2026.

Climate Change Impacts (5 articles)

• They call it stupid hot for a reason: Heat muddles animal brains As temperatures rise, some creatures pick fights while others struggle to learn. Ars Technica, Marta Zaraska, May 31, 2026.
• Coral Reefs in French Polynesia Are Stuck Between Life and Death Scientists’ discovery of hollowed coral skeletons after a 2019 bleaching event reveals a reef that isn’t coming back. Inside Climate News, Ryan Green, Jun 01, 2026.
• Colorado River faces `devastating consequences` if another dry winter lands, experts warn Even a huge snowpack during the coming winter would only give the river basin states less than two years of storage before reservoirs returned to historic lows. Inside Climate News, Jake Bolster, Jun 03, 2026.
• Climate change may shift hailstorms towards Earth`s poles - new study Two studies point to increasing risk from hail damage in a warming world, even though the details of where this will be experienced are still not clear. The Conversation, Timothy H. Raupach, Jun 03, 2026.
• School in a hot world: what research is saying about children`s health and learning While much attention has focused on climate impacts like droughts, floods and food insecurity, another crisis is unfolding quietly inside classrooms, where research has shown that some schools are becoming dangerously hot places for children to develop, learn and play. The Conversation, Caradee Yael Wright and Natasha Naidoo, Jun 04, 2026.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (4 articles)

• As Seas Rise, Louisiana Faces a Choice: Plan for Movement or Let Crisis Decide Coastal Louisiana may be ground zero for climate migration in the U.S., but a new study argues that planning now could turn displacement into agency. Inside Climate News, Avery Schuyler Nunn, May 30, 2026.
• How methane policy will make or break the climate crisis While some countries are introducing abatement policies, key gaps remain in current policies. The Conversation, Helena Wright, Executive Director, Climate Policy Monitor, University of Oxford, Jun 03, 2026.
• Electric vehicles cut pollution in China – and prevent 260,000 premature deaths Having fewer fossil-fuel powered cars on the road is reducing some pollutants, but not others. Nature, Claudia Steiner, June 5, 2026.
• UK urged not to further weaken EV rules as CO2 impact revealed British vehicles will emit extra 17m tonnes of CO2 by 2030 due to loophole allowing sale of more PHEVs, data suggests. The Guardian, Jasper Jolly, Jun 06, 2026.

Miscellaneous (2 articles)

• A Rule That Would Rewrite the Terms of U.S. Science A new rule promulgated by the US executive branch would give political appointees veto power over peer review, allow the government to cancel active grants mid-project with minimal justification, ban entire categories of science from federal funding, and restrict researchers’ ability to publish their work and attend scientific conferences. American Geophysical Union, Brando Jones, May 4, 2026.
• 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #22 A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, May 24, 2026 thru Sat, May 30, 2026. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler & Doug Bostrom, May 31, 2026.

Climate Education and Communication (1 article)

• Irish people's lack of concern over climate action due to mixed messaging from politicians What is clear from the Irish Examiner climate poll is that the gap between the intensifying global climate crisis and public concern is still very wide Irish Examiner, John Gibbons, Jun 02, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Solutions (1 article)

• Fact brief - Do electric vehicles almost always have a lower carbon footprint than gasoline-powered cars? Analysis indicates that electric vehicles nearly always end up with a net benefit for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Skeptical Science, Sue Bin Park, Jun 02, 2026.

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

President Donald Trump is using wartime presidential authority to hand $700 million to coal-fired power plants in the U.S., the latest move by the president to bolster what he called “clean, beautiful coal,” despite it being the dirtiest of fossil fuels.

“Today, we’re taking historic action to bring down the price of energy and the cost of living for all Americans with the power of clean, beautiful coal,” he said at a press conference on Thursday.

Trump is using the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era statute used to accelerate American industrial output in times of national need, to provide grants to more than a dozen existing coal plants across the U.S., including facilities capable of exporting coal.

“As a result of the $700 million investment that I’m announcing today, we will protect 14 coal plants and 42 coalmines, a tremendous number, and build two new coal plants and one massive new export terminal,” Trump said.

Read Next Why the government is trying to make coal cute Kate Yoder

The funds will be used to bring a new coal export terminal online in Oakland, California, and to restart an existing facility in Maryland.

They will also keep online plants across 10 states: West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Each of those 10 states voted for Trump, the president boasted on Thursday. “We won them all,” he said.

The two new coal plants will be in Alaska and West Virginia.

Trump has long been a champion of reviving the United States’ ailing coal industry. Thursday’s White House event featured supportive governors and lawmakers from coal-rich states such as Wyoming and West Virginia.

In the past year, the Trump administration has doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to the coal industry, signed orders forcing ratepayers to pay extra for aging plants to stay open, and dismantled environmental rules that limit toxins from coal leaching into Americans’ shared air and water.

The administration’s attempts to provide a cuddly rebranding to coal have even extended to creating a new mascot with giant eyes, called Coalie, and gushing social media posts that include an image of a lump of coal wearing sunglasses as if it were on the TV show Love Island.

Read Next Solar to overtake coal on Texas grid for the first time ever this year Julian Spector, Canary Media

“You’re not allowed to say ‘coal’ within the Trump administration unless it’s preceded by the words ‘clean, beautiful,’” Trump said on Thursday. “Complicates our life, but it’s good.”

Regardless of such terminology, coal is not clean. It is the most carbon-dense fossil fuel and therefore a leading cause of the climate crisis when burned. Coal also gives off tiny toxic particles that sicken miners and trigger widespread respiratory and heart health problems across the U.S. — research has estimated that as many as 460,000 deaths in the U.S. from 1999 to 2020 were attributable to air pollution from coal plants alone.

Environmental groups strongly criticized the administration’s latest aid for coal. “It is disgusting and reprehensible that the president of the United States is giving away our taxpayer dollars to deadly and expensive coal plants that will make Americans sicker and drive up electricity prices even more,” said Patrick Drupp, climate policy director of the Sierra Club.

“This handout betrays everything Donald Trump promised and only serves his big coal buddies who stroke his ego and hand him shiny trophies.”

Though Trump on Thursday claimed that his pro-coal actions will lower energy bills and that wind power is “the most expensive energy,” experts say coal plants are more expensive to build and operate than renewable power sources.

Read Next In coal country, black lung surges as federal protections stall Kate Morgan

Trump’s attempts to revive the coal industry, while at the same time seeking to stymie the rapid growth of clean energy such as solar and wind, have so far floundered. The number of people working in coal has declined by more than 90 percent in the past century, with more people now working in Waffle Houses across the U.S. than in coal.

U.S. coal production is currently less than half of what it was in 2008, with coal recently declining as both a fuel for electricity and as an input for manufacturing materials such as iron and steel. Cheap, abundant gas has helped displace coal from power grids, with even cheaper renewable energy also now taking off in the U.S. despite the administration’s efforts to kill it off.

“What’s next, a taxpayer bailout to build new phone booths?” said Kit Kennedy, a senior climate campaigner at the Natural Resources Defense Council, of the new round of support for coal. “This is going to mean higher bills and dirtier air. What a waste.

“Propping up coal billionaires with taxpayer money is one more way for the Trump administration to put polluters first and put the rest of us at risk.”

The coal industry applauded Trump’s new order, arguing that ramped-up coal production will help the U.S. meet a historic spike in electricity demand caused by the surging artificial intelligence sector.

“Coal generation shields consumers from the impacts of volatile energy prices and supply challenges,” said Rich Nolan, chief executive of the National Mining Association.

The Environmental Protection Agency also announced plans to change an Obama-era emissions reductions plan that would have shuttered the Dave Johnston Unit 3 power plant in Wyoming.

Trump railed against Obama and Joe Biden for working to scale back coal power.

“Under four years of Sleepy Joe Biden and the radical left Democrats in Congress, not a single permit was approved for a new coal mining project, but in over one year of our administration, we’ve already approved 76 permits for clean, beautiful coal,” Trump said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump uses wartime powers to dole out $700 million to ‘clean, beautiful’ coal on Jun 7, 2026.