Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fallout: Resignations, Security Escorts, and a Collar

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

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

Regulators to Shell: Pay Up, Fix It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once investors lawyered up, Shell started writing checks:

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

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

What Broke (Besides Trust)

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

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

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

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

Greatest-Hits Headlines (Yes, These Are Real)

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

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

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

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

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

• Shell Reserves Scandal 2004 (images)

Legal Documents & Core Source Links

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

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

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

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

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

Key Context & Confirmations

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

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

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

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

Bottom Line (With Feeling)

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

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

Related Domain Drama with Visual Flair

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

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

Domain Name Drama: The Goliath vs. Donovan Showdown

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why This Digital Farce Matters

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

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

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

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

Working Links 

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

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

  • 2007 recap: royaldutchshellplc.com

  • 10th-anniversary reflection: royaldutchshellplc.com

  Why the Image Works

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

DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shell Loses LNG Case to Venture Global was first posted on August 13, 2025 at 10:31 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

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

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

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

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

Guinea Pigs in Overalls

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

North Sea: Touch F*** All**

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

The Nigerian Death Dividend

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

The Great Shareholder Scam

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

Hakluyt: Shell’s Own SPECTRE

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

The “Net Zero” Farce

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

“Standards should reflect realistic societal and economic changes.”

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

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

Judges, Justice, and a Whiff of Rot

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

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

The Verdict

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

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

Graphic credit: royaldutchshellplc.com aided by AI

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

Shell: Public Enemy Number 1 – A Love Letter to Greed, Lies, and Pollution was first posted on August 12, 2025 at 8:02 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

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

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

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

Key aspects of John Donovan’s association with Shell:

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI responses may include mistakes.

Who is the John Donovan connected with Shell? was first posted on August 10, 2025 at 5:42 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

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

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

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

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

And then there’s Shell.

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

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

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

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

Until then, Shell’s strategy is clear:

• Cut costs.

• Please shareholders with buybacks and dividends.

• Avoid mentioning that output is in freefall.

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

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

 

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

Shell’s Energy “Transition” Hits a 20-Year Low in Oil Output – And Wall Street Still Claps was first posted on August 8, 2025 at 4:28 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shell’s Profits Drop—But Not Enough to Stop the Greedfest was first posted on August 1, 2025 at 5:47 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

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

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

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

Shell’s heroic solution?

• Sell off their chemicals plant in Singapore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shell’s Chemicals Unit Is Drowning was first posted on August 1, 2025 at 5:26 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

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

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

Let’s break it down:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shell to the World: “We’re Not Moving to the US Yet—We’re Already Raking It In Just Fine from London, Thanks” was first posted on August 1, 2025 at 4:14 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

SHELL AND EXXON CASH OUT €3 BILLION WHILE GRONINGEN CRUMBLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shell and Exxon Cash Out €3 Billion While Groningen Crumbles was first posted on July 30, 2025 at 9:15 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net