You are here

Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com

Subscribe to Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com feed Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Updated: 4 days 15 hours ago

BP and Shell could be takeover targets if Exxon and Chevron snatch opportunity for ‘industry arbitrage’ – Citi

Fri, 01/27/2023 - 07:53

BP and Shell could be takeover targets if Exxon and Chevron snatch opportunity for ‘industry arbitrage’ – Citi

proactiveinvestors.co.uk

Jamie Ashcroft: Wed 25 Jan 2023

BP PLC (LSE:BP.) and Shell PLC (LSE:SHEL, NYSE:SHEL) may find themselves at the negotiating table as American peers Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) or Chevron Corporation (NYSE:CVX) could come calling, that’s the view of analysts at Citigroup.

A megamerger between either London-listed oil major and either of America’s largest oilers appears increasingly attractive, on valuation terms at least, according to the Wall Street bank.

There’s a wide value gap between the transatlantic peers with the European oil and gas sector nowadays enduring softer investor sentiment, distracted by different attitudes to ESG and energy transition than seen stateside, all of which leaves an apparently widening value gap.

A megamerger would, in theory, help European valuations cinch the gap in a way that Citi doesn’t think will otherwise happen organically – or, at least, that’s the broker’s pitch.

FULL ARTICLE

BP and Shell could be takeover targets if Exxon and Chevron snatch opportunity for ‘industry arbitrage’ – Citi was first posted on January 27, 2023 at 4:53 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

Shell Energy is the most complained about broadband firm again

Fri, 01/27/2023 - 07:43

telecoms.com

Shell Energy is the most complained about broadband firm again

Written by Andrew Wooden Shell Energy continued to attract the most broadband and landline complaints to Ofcom in Q3 2022, while BT Mobile, Virgin Mobile and iD Mobile were the most complained-about mobile operators. As it has for the last few quarters, Shell Energy has topped Ofcom’s rankings of complaints it received in the category of broadband and landline. Complaints were mainly around faults and service issues, while landline customers were chiefly unhappy with how complaints were handled. FULL ARTICLE Shell Energy is the most complained about broadband firm again was first posted on January 27, 2023 at 4:43 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

Ofcom tells Shell Energy to ‘get a grip’ on broadband and landline complaints

Fri, 01/27/2023 - 06:00

Ofcom tells Shell Energy to ‘get a grip’ on broadband and landline complaints

Josie Clarke, PA Consumer Affairs Correspondent Thu, 26 January 2023 at 11:06 am GMT UK News: Ofcom has urged Shell Energy to “get a grip” on broadband and landline complaints after the firm attracted significantly higher volumes than other providers. BT Mobile, Virgin Mobile and iD Mobile are the most complained-about mobile operators, according to the regulator’s latest figures. Ofcom said it is monitoring Shell’s performance closely. The regulator said: “We have been engaging with the provider and urged it to get a grip on identifying and addressing the root causes of these issues.

“As always, should we identify specific concerns with how our rules are being followed, we will consider whether it is appropriate to take formal action.”

Virgin Media continued to generate the most pay TV complaints, Ofcom said.

Overall, the volume of complaints between July and September were broadly in line with the previous three months.

Sky had the fewest pay TV and broadband complaints, while EE joined Sky as the least complained-about landline providers.

Tesco Mobile, Sky Mobile and EE generated the fewest complaints in the mobile sector.

Broadband complaints were mainly driven by faults and service issues, while landline customers were mainly unhappy with how complaints were handled, Ofcom reported.

“If you’re not happy with the service you’re getting, consider shopping around and moving elsewhere. You could end up with better customer service as well as saving money.”

A Shell Energy Broadband spokesman said: “We always strive to learn from any instances where a customer feels let down.

“Ofcom’s table reflects our position up to six months ago, and since then we have invested heavily and made big strides in our customer service and complaint processes.

“We’re confident that these improvements will be reflected when Ofcom releases its results for the current period.”

FULL ARTICLE

Ofcom tells Shell Energy to ‘get a grip’ on broadband and landline complaints was first posted on January 27, 2023 at 3:00 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 puts 2,000 UK jobs at risk with review of Shell Energy retail division

Fri, 01/27/2023 - 05:51

The Guardian

Shell puts 2,000 UK jobs at risk with review of Shell Energy retail division

Alex Lawson Energy Correspondent: Thu 26 Jan 2023 Shell has put more than 2,000 jobs in the UK at risk after launching a “strategic review” of its domestic energy and telecoms supply division. The oil and gas supermajor said on Thursday that it had told staff in Shell Energy, which has operations in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany, that it has begun analysis of future options for the business, which could include exiting the sectors.

The UK business, which is headquartered just outside Coventry, has 1.4 million energy customers and about 500,000 broadband users.

The company said it had made the decision against the backdrop of a strategy which includes “continually exploring options to maximise the value of our portfolio and address performance in tough market conditions”.

First Utility and rebranding the business to Shell Energy Retail the following year. It took over the Post Office’s broadband customers in 2021 and now offers broadband at varying speeds across three tariffs.

The energy company and its rivals reported booming profits from their oil and gas operations in 2022 as the price of commodities spiked, in part as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

However, retail energy suppliers have struggled in recent years with nearly 30 UK operators going bust, including Bulb which collapsed into a government-handled administration before its acquisition by Octopus Energy.

Shell said that “no decisions” had been take on the future of its home retail businesses and the review process would take “a number of months”.

The company said: “Our priority remains to ensure our customers in those countries continue to receive a reliable and affordable energy supply, and to provide support for customers who are struggling with the cost of energy and wider cost of living pressures.”

Shell said its wholesale and business-to-business energy supply divisions were unaffected, along with its businesses supplying homes in the US and Australia.

The group will next week post its first results since new chief executive, Wael Sawan, took over from longstanding head Ben van Beurden earlier this month.

The firm is expected to post adjusted annual profits of around $83bn (£67bn) against $55bn (£44bn) the previous year, including around $19bn (£15bn) in the final quarter of the year, against $16.3bn (£13.2bn) a year ago.

FULL ARTICLE

Shell puts 2,000 UK jobs at risk with review of Shell Energy retail division was first posted on January 27, 2023 at 2:51 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 Wants To Bail On Energy Retail Businesses Due To “Tough Market Conditions”

Fri, 01/27/2023 - 05:09

OILPRICE.COM

Shell Wants To Bail On Energy Retail Businesses Due To “Tough Market Conditions”

By Julianne Geiger – Jan 26, 2023, 3:30 PM CST Shell is looking to bail on its energy retail business across multiple countries amid “tough market conditions,” the company said on Thursday. The tough market conditions likely refer to higher wholesale prices across Europe that have plagued many retailers, as well as price-capping measures instituted by governments to keep consumers from having to pay exorbitant energy bills. Shell said on Thursday that it had commenced a review of its retail business in Britain, Norway, and Germany and that the process could take months. Of the three businesses, Shell’s retail operations in the UK, Shell Energy Retail, is the biggest, boasting 1.4 million customers.

But while it has pegged its European retail arms to stand before the firing squad, Shell’s 2022 annual profit is expected to come in at more than $30 billion, Reuters said, as high oil and gas prices have helped the business improve its overall performance.

Shell sunk $1.5 billion in cash and credit into its British energy retail business last year in order to help with volatile prices and the tough market conditions in the retail segment as natural gas supplies ran short. While Shell managed to survive the last couple of years, other British retailers such as Bulb declared bankruptcy after multiple British power suppliers failed to hedge their future costs back when the getting was good. The cost to taxpayers—billions.

Shell Energy Retail booked losses in 2020 and 2021, “principally driven by market conditions. In particular, the unprecedented rise in energy prices in the latter part of 2021 adversely impacted the financial performance, including increased costs as a result of supplier failures in the market and the inability to pass on higher energy costs,” Shell said in its results filing last year.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com

Shell Wants To Bail On Energy Retail Businesses Due To “Tough Market Conditions” was first posted on January 27, 2023 at 2:09 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’s Prelude FLNG Restarts First Cargo Since Fire

Tue, 01/24/2023 - 03:24

The most recent incident happened only a year after a similar fire forced the vessel to go down for nearly five months.

Shell’s Prelude FLNG Restarts First Cargo Since Fire

Zacks Equity Research: Mon, January 23, 2023  Shell SHEL recently announced the restart of liquefied natural gas LNG cargoes from its Prelude floating LNG FLNG facility offshore Australia, following a temporary fire-related technical outage in December.

According to Shell, the fire was promptly put out and the area was declared safe; it also stated that no one was hurt and all of the facility’s workers were safe and well.

Following a small fire at the 3.6M metric tons/year facility, Prelude, the largest floating plant for natural gas liquefaction in the world, had paused its gas production last month due to an ongoing investigation.

The most recent incident happened only a year after a similar fire forced the vessel to go down for nearly five months. The unit was also offline from June to September 2022 due to industrial action by the workers protesting for enhanced pay.

Prelude FLNG has a minimum annual liquid production capacity of 5.3 million tons per annum (mtpa), which includes 3.6 mtpa of LNG, 1.3 mtpa of condensate, and 0.4 mtpa of liquefied petroleum gas. With a 67.5% ownership in the facility, Shell is the largest shareholder.

Zacks Rank and Key Picks

Headquartered in London, Shell is one of the primary oil supermajors, a group of U.S. and Europe-based big energy multinationals with operations spanning worldwide.

FULL ARTICLE

Shell’s Prelude FLNG Restarts First Cargo Since Fire was first posted on January 24, 2023 at 12:24 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

Climate activists across world raise funds for the court case against Shell

Mon, 01/23/2023 - 15:02

Climate activists across world raise funds for the court case against Shell

Friends of the Earth Netherlands: 20/01/2023 | 16:25 PM

In 2021, thousands of Dutch citizens took one of the largest carbon emitters in the world to court and won. Together with Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie) they won a historic court case against Royal Dutch Shell, the parent company of Shell Group, forcing the company to take climate action.

The judge ruled that Shell’s current climate policy would contribute to a level of climate change that would be so dangerous that it would impose a threat to human rights.

Besides, the ruling forces the company to change their goal from a mere 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions to a whopping 45 per cent reduction by 2030. But most importantly, the ruling says Shell also carries responsibility for the emissions of the use of their products by third parties.

In response, Shell decided to appeal the Dutch court’s ruling in July 2021.

The company moved its headquarters from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom in January 2022. As a result, Milieudefensie is now launching a campaign to raise donations to fund the continuation of this enormous court case. Their goal: legally binding one of the largest polluters in the world to actual, groundbreaking change for the better.

This week, thousands of climate advocates, activists and organisations across the world shared an online viral video and hashtag #BeatShell, calling on Shell’s new chief executive to take responsibility in the climate crisis. The video is part of the fundraising campaign for Milieudefensie’s case against Shell, and thousands across the world are helping out with individual contributions.

For more information click here.

Climate activists across world raise funds for the court case against Shell was first posted on January 24, 2023 at 12:02 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

Flaring emissions dominate pollution from Beaver County’s Shell plant

Mon, 01/23/2023 - 14:50

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Flaring emissions dominate pollution from Beaver County’s Shell plant

ANYA LITVAK: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette alitvak@post-gazette.com: Jan 22 2023

September was a tumultuous month for the Shell chemical plant in Beaver County.

On Sept. 3, a missing O-ring in a circulation pump led to a leak of isobutane vapor. Two days later, brown emissions were seen coming out of high pressure ground flares — two metal combustion chambers that burn off unwanted gasses from the ethane cracker.

Three days after that, two separate flanges leaked hydrocarbons, and an ethylene refrigerant compressor tripped after it registered a high dew-point temperature. It tripped again two days later because of high vibration, which cascaded into a trip of several other systems.

On Sept.15, a calibration error caused a trip of the cracked gas compressor. In another three days, the propane refrigeration compressor stopped; three days after that, high methanol levels in the acetylene reactor caused that equipment to malfunction.

In December, the DEP said it was investigating Shell’s start-up process and its exceedance of its permit, which sets a rolling 12-month limit on emissions of certain pollutants.

When it was all done, Shell estimates it released two tons of benzene, a carcinogen that can also cause temporary health impacts from short-term exposure.

This event more than doubled Shell’s emissions of hazardous air pollutants in 2022, according to its monthly figures, which do not include the last two months of the year.

FULL ARTICLE

Flaring emissions dominate pollution from Beaver County’s Shell plant was first posted on January 23, 2023 at 11:50 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 SSE worst for energy customer satisfaction, says Which?

Sat, 01/21/2023 - 15:30

proactiveinvestors.co.uk

Shell and SSE worst for energy customer satisfaction, says Which?

Jai Singh: 13:15 Fri 20 Jan 2023

SSE Energy Services and Shell are among the lowest-rated energy suppliers, according to a Which? survey.

Surveying more than 10,000 customers and covering 16 suppliers in Great Britain last October, the consumer choice researcher ranked Shell and SSE jointly next to the bottom in its assessment score.

FULL ARTICLE

 

 

Shell and SSE worst for energy customer satisfaction, says Which? was first posted on January 22, 2023 at 12:30 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

Shell to spend $450m on carbon offsetting as fears grow that credits may be worthless

Fri, 01/20/2023 - 13:39

theguardian.com/uk

Shell to spend $450m on carbon offsetting as fears grow that credits may be worthless

The fossil fuel firm Shell has set aside more than $450m (£367m) to invest in carbon offsetting projects, and plans to spend the equivalent of half the current market for nature offsets every year, the Guardian can reveal.

But a joint investigation by the Guardian, Die Zeit and Source Material into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn voluntary offsets market, has found, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, that more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits” and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.

FULL ARTICLE

Shell to spend $450m on carbon offsetting as fears grow that credits may be worthless was first posted on January 20, 2023 at 10:39 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 Prelude Fires

Wed, 01/18/2023 - 03:05

RIGZONE

Prelude FLNG Loads Out First Cargo Since Fire

by Bojan Lepic| Rigzone Staff| Wednesday, January 18, 2023

Even though Shell has not confirmed any restart on its massive Prelude FLNG, Reuters reported that the Methane Becki Anne LNG tanker has begun loading.

The Methane Becki Anne was the first LNG tanker to berth at Shell’s Prelude floating LNG site off Western Australia since it was shut down after a fire.

According to Reuters, the LNG carrier vessel berthed at the Prelude plant on January 17, Refinitiv ship-tracking data showed. Refinitiv’s data also showed that LNG has already begun loading.

The location of the Methane Becki Anne provided by VesselsValue also confirms that the vessel is at the Prelude FLNG site.

The facility can produce up to 3.6 million tons per annum of LNG, but issues have plagued its production since the start. Prelude FLNG initially faced start-up delays with the first LNG cargo departing the unit in June 2019, two years after it had arrived at the field from South Korea.

The first major outage occurred in February 2020 when an electrical trip caused Shell to shut down production. It was not brought back online until January 2021.

Prelude FLNG facility experienced an unplanned event that resulted in a complete loss of power at the facility on December 2, 2021, which subsequently led to unreliable and intermittent power availability over 3 days. It was shut down by Australia’s offshore regulator.

After the offshore regulator gave it the go-ahead, Shell completed the loading of the first vessel that left the Prelude FLNG site in early April 2022. Accidentally, the LNG carrier in question at the time was the same vessel as now – the 170,000-cbm GasLog Partners-owned Methane Becki Anne.

Good times on the Prelude didn’t last though as the facility was shut down again due to a union spat. The end of the year was no better. Prelude was hit by a fire in December 2022 and production had been temporarily suspended. At the time, Shell gave no timeline for when the plant would resume output.

Prelude FLNG has a production capacity of at least 5.3 million tons per annum (mtpa) of liquids – comprising 3.6 mtpa of LNG, 1.3 mtpa of condensate, and 0.4 mtpa of liquefied petroleum gas. Shell holds a 67.5 percent interest in the facility, with Inpex holding a 17.5 percent stake, KOGAS holding a ten percent interest, and CPC holding a five percent stake.

To contact the author, email bojan.lepic@rigzone.com

FULL ARTICLE

Shell Prelude Fires was first posted on January 18, 2023 at 12:05 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

One of the worst Internet connections I ever had

Wed, 01/18/2023 - 02:50

One of the worst Internet connections I ever had. Service level is at the absolute minimum. Hope they go bankrupt!

Shell Energy Broadband Reviews recently posted on broadband.co.uk

Reviewer S.b: Location Scottish borders: Date 2022-12-30

Comments

Utterly useless. Worst internet provider I have ever experienced. And I use the term provider in the loosest sense of the term, as they provide very little. Signed up to 70mbps deal which promises a minimum of 40 at any time. Here’s what I get: download on Steam or blizzard servers, on an ethernet cable connected desktop, plugged directly to the router, 1mbps download speed. Absolute peak connection speed I have seen on anything, was on the PS4 speed test, max 3.5 Mbps. You can forget gaming with shell internet. I drop out completely at least once an hour. You can barely browse the internet. Forget online auctions, you wont stay connected long enough. What they are delivering isn’t even 5% of what was promised. Utter shambles. Do not use.

Reviewer K: Location Bewdley: Date 2022-12-28

Comments

I would give no stars but I’m being nice. it has been fine for a few months but al of a sudden it’s started being really poor. If it’s not disconnecting then the upload and download speeds is disappearing. I use it for Xbox and there is hardly any devices connected yet I still lag? I’m not wasting money on something that isn’t even worth it.

Reviewer Kalandro: Location Kingston: Date 2022-12-26

Comments

Avoid at all costs… They advertise a super fast fibre and let you sign up to a 70 Mbps connection. In the sign up process they will show you an estimated range, which will we much lower than the 70 Mbps. In the end I only ever achieved 30 Mbps on good days, when the connection was working without any interruptions, which is rare. And is it any wonder that 30 Mbps is the absolute minimum the guarantee in their contract?

If you try to get in touch, be prepared to wait 30 min+ and telephone calls suddenly dropped. They answer to emails sometimes, but not always. Multiple of my emails asking for support remained unanswered.

And what a suprise, if you want to cancel as a result, they insist on the full amount to be paid. One of the worst Internet connections I ever had. Service level is at the absolute minimum. Hope they go bankrupt!

One of the worst Internet connections I ever had was first posted on January 18, 2023 at 11:50 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

Ogoni 9 Widows Dutch court case against Shell

Mon, 01/16/2023 - 03:56

The struggle continues: Please show compassion for the widows of the Ogoni 9

JANUARY 16, 2023 BY ANDY ROWELL BLOG POST

Extracts

When the Nigerian writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa was murdered in 1995 along with eight other colleagues, his reported final words were: “Lord take my soul, but the struggle continues”.

Saro-Wiwa and the others had been campaigning against Shell’s ecological destruction of Ogoniland. Thirty years ago this month, on January 4 1995, some 300,000 Ogoni, some sixty per cent of the population, peacefully protested against the oil giant’s activities. At the time, it was the largest mobilisation against an oil company worldwide.

One Ogoni leader told the crowd that day that we have “woken up to find our lands devastated by agents of death called oil companies. Our atmosphere has been totally polluted, our lands degraded, our waters contaminated, our trees poisoned.”

The energy and hope of that day have been long eroded in the decades that have passed. On November 10 1995, Saro-Wiwa and the other Ogoni 9, Saturday Dobee, Nordu Eawo, Daniel Gbooko, Paul Levula, Felix Nuate, Baribor Bera, Barinem Kiobel, and John Kpuine were murdered by the Nigerian military after a sham trial to silence their campaign against Shell.

For years, some of the widows of the Ogoni 9 sought justice and to hold Shell to account for its role in the death of their husbands.

In 2002, one widow, Esther Kiobel sued Shell in the United States, where she had been granted asylum. Over ten years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the case, meaning U.S. courts never got to examine the facts of the case.

In 2017, Esther Kiobel and three other widows, Victoria Bera, Blessing Eawo, and Charity Levula, brought a new legal case against Shell in the Netherlands.  During the trial, three witnesses stood under oath and, one by one, testified that Shell bribed them.

Last year, in a devastating verdict for the widows, the court sided with Shell. The judge dismissed these witnesses and evidence, saying that this was not enough to prove that Shell was guilty. You can read the judgement here.

Justice may have been denied, but the struggle continues. Now it could be your turn to help. Please give generously. The link to the page is here.

FULL ARTICLE

RELATED INFORMATION BELOW FROM THE HAGUE DISTRICT COURT

Commerce Team

case number / cause list number: C/09/540872 / HA ZA 17-1048

Judgment of 23 March 2022

in case of

1[claimant 1] [place 1] , [country 1] ,

2. [claimant 2] or [place 2] , [country 2] ,

3. [claimant 3] or [place 3] , [country 3] ,

4. [claimant 4] or [place 4] , [country 3] ,

claimants,

counsel Mr. Ch. Samkalden or Amsterdam,

vs

1. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC of London, United Kingdom, with its registered office in The Hague, Netherlands,

2. SHELL PETROLEUM NV of The Hague, Netherlands,

3. THE SHELL TRANSPORT AND TRADING COMPANY LIMITED of London, United Kingdom,

4. THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LTD of Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Federal Republic of Nigeria,

defendants,

counsel mr. WI Wisman of The Hague.

Claimants are hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘claimants’ and individually as [claimant 1] , [claimant 2] , [claimant 3] and [claimant 4] . Defendants are hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘defendants’ and individually as RDS, SPNV, STTC and SPDC.

1 The proceedings

1.1.

The course of the proceedings is evidenced by the following:

– the interlocutory judgment of 1 May 2019 and the documents referred to therein;

– the official reports of the witness examinations of 8 and 9 October 2019 and of 25 September 2020;

– the claimants’ document containing Exhibits, with Exhibits;

– the parties’ statements after the witness examinations, with Exhibits;

– the claimants’ document commenting on Exhibits, with Exhibits.

1.2.Finally, judgment was scheduled for today.

2 The further assessment

2.1.The claimants are the widows of four of a group of nine men, also known as the Ogoni 9, who were hanged in Nigeria on 10 November 1995 following a death sentence passed by a special tribunal for their involvement in the death of four traditional Ogoni leaders at a meeting in Giokoo in 1994. The claimants hold the defendants co-responsible for their husbands’ arrest, detention, conviction, and the subsequent execution of the sentence. In brief, they argue that the defendants were instrumental in, and therefore liable for, the human rights violations to which the claimants and their husbands were subjected.

2.2.In the interlocutory judgment, binding final decisions were made regarding the defendants’ invocation of a time limit and regarding the claimants’ accusations, apart from the alleged involvement of the SPDC in bribing witnesses. This accusation details that the SPDC influenced the trial against the Ogoni 9 by bribing witnesses to make incriminating statements, which were decisive for the conviction of the claimants’ husbands and/or played a role in their arrest and detention. The court has allowed the claimants to submit proof of their allegations – contested by the defendants, stating reasons – regarding the involvement of the SPDC in bribing the witnesses named by the claimants and the use of these witness statements – to be determined per husband and/or claimant – in the conviction and/or arrest and detention of the claimants’ husbands and /or the detention of the claimants. The alleged involvement of the SPDC in bribing the witnesses [witness 1] , [witness 2] , [witness 3] , [witness 4] , [witness 5] , [witness 6] , [witness 7] and [witness 8] consists of the presence of the attorney [Attorney] or of a representative of the SPDC at the meeting(s) where these witnesses had to write down or sign statements drawn up by others, financial contributions by the SPDC towards payments to these witnesses, and the promise of a job to these witnesses by the SPDC.

2.3.The claimants had examined the following witnesses: [witness 1] (hereinafter: [witness 1] ), [witness 2] (hereinafter: [witness 2] ), [witness 7] (hereinafter: [witness 7] ), [witness 9 ] (hereinafter: [witness 9] ) and [witness 10] (hereinafter: [witness 10] ). The defendants decided against a cross-examination. The delegated judge examined the witnesses in the English language or Pidgin English with the help of an interpreter. The questions and answers are reproduced verbatim in the official reports. There are also reports in the English language, drawn up by court reporters engaged by the defendants. These reports have been submitted to the proceedings. Both the claimants and the defendants have submitted new Exhibits to the proceedings.

2.4.

The defendants have noted that, when viewing the witness statements and the submitted Exhibits in conjunction, it cannot be ruled out that the (intended) witnesses in the Ogoni trial were coerced or pressured to make statements in the trial and/or that they were promised some sort of reward. The court concurs with this. These proceedings, however, revolve around establishing whether or not the SPDC was involved in these matters and thus influenced the trial against the claimants’ husbands or facilitated the detention of the claimants.

The court concludes that this is not the case and has been considered as follows.

2.5.It is an established fact that [witness 1] and [witness 2] , who both made incriminating statements to the police about the events in Giokoo, made supplementary affidavits on 16 and 27 February 1995 at the offices of one of the attorneys of the accused . In those affidavits, they stated that they and several other witnesses had been pressured by the main prosecution witnesses, [main prosecution witness 1] (hereinafter: [main prosecution witness 1] ) – the brother of one of the killed men – and [main prosecution witness 2] , to sign false, incriminating statements against [Q] (hereinafter: [Q] ) and other accused. The affidavits state that the witnesses were paid and that they were promised contracts at ‘Shell’ and OMPADEC [Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission, a Nigerian government institution, added by the court]. The alleged witness bribery is mentioned in the reports of [Reporter] and Human Rights Watch (see under 2.31 and 2.32 of the interlocutory judgment). The defendants rightly note that [Reporter] does not mention any involvement of the SPDC in the witness bribery described in his report. The Human Rights Watch report states that these accusations of bribery were denied at the time by both the prosecutor and the SPDC. The alleged witness bribery was also discussed during the trial before the tribunal (see legal ground 4.91 of the interlocutory judgment). The tribunal denied an application to enter the affidavits of [witness 1] and [witness 2] into evidence. From the trial reports issued to the SPDC of the colleagues of attorney [Attorney] – who acted as watching brief for the SPDC during the trial – it follows that the tribunal interviewed [main prosecution witness 1] as a witness. In the cross-examination, [main prosecution witness 1] denied that Shell, the Rivers State administration and he personally paid [witness 2] 30,000 naira.

2.6.

The alleged involvement of the SPDC in witness bribery already received attention during and at the time of the tribunal. At the time, the SPDC categorically denied that accusation in a telex of 28 February 1995 to the editor-in-chief of the newspaper The Masses , who had published an article on [witness 1] , in which [witness 1]’s affidavit had been printed. The telex states, inter alia:

“I was very surprised to read allegations that Shell had offered bribes of cash and contracts to prosecution witnesses in the trial of four Ogonis for murder.

These are extremely serious allegations (…).

I therefor take this opportunity to state categorically that this company has at no time offered any bribes to any prosecution witnesses in this case or any other case. (…) Moreover, the company has no involvement in this case.”

Furthermore, an internal SPDC memo dated 22 February 1995 states:

“I have received our lawyer’s report which says that [A] presented an affidavit of one [witness 1] (a prosecution witness) stating that he was induced to make his statement to the prosecution on the promise of 30,000 naira and contract from Shell and Ompadec. (…) This state is completely baseless and untrue!”

2.7.

[witness 1] stated the following in his affidavit:

“On another date of meeting in [main prosecution witness 1] ‘s House representative from Shell, OMPADEC, Security agents, Government officials and the [main prosecution witness 1] , [Y] and [Z] ‘s family were present and they all agreed.

The family gave some money and say that the money came from the government and Shell. In my case I was given N30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand Naira) from Shell and Government (…).”

2.8.

As a witness in these proceedings, [witness 1] has testified that about three weeks after the murder of the Ogoni leaders he was picked up and taken to the house of the killed Chief [X] in Port Harcourt. He had to stay in the adjacent area for some time and was taken to the police building complex, the officers’ mess, in the government residential area, or GRA, on several occasions during that period, where he was made to write a statement. [main prosecution witness 1] pressured [witness 1] to write a statement. [witness 1] was also hit over the head with a power cable by a police officer. [witness 1] has also stated that at one point he was taken to [main prosecution witness 1]’s large house, where ‘Shell officials’ and ‘government officials’were present, and who did not identify themselves. However, he did hear that one of them was referred to as ‘[Name Mr] ‘. When asked how he knew that they were ‘Shell men’, [witness 1] stated the following:

“When they said they would do something for me, I said how, and then they said, please, this gentleman can help you. So they could also agree to the offer that was made. And at that moment I thought: wow, this is a nice quick solution. (…)

I know that they are from Shell because of the way they speak. They were saying things that were different or different speak than the other men. So the way in which they spoke, and what they said and the way they reacted, and they also said Omamasain. (…) So I knew by the way they spoke they were from Shell.”

2.9.From this it follows that [witness 1] assumed that the men were ‘Shell officials’ on account of the way they talked and behaved and because they mentioned ‘Omamassin’ – which should be understood (and this is not in dispute) as a reference to Rumuomasi, a district in Port Harcourt where the SPDC’s head offices are located. This inference made by [witness 1] is not supported by objective facts and therefore cannot contribute towards proving that the men were indeed ‘Shell officials’. The same applies to his statement that the men left in a Peugeot 504 with a Shell BP sticker. It is not in dispute that the SPDC previously used the name Shell BP, but has not used that name since 1979. The claimants assert that, since the current SPDC previously used the name Shell BP for years, it must be assumed that ‘SPDC’ and ‘Shell BP’ are used interchangeably in popular parlance, just like [witness 1] did in his statement when referring to the SPDC. Be that as it may, [witness 1] – who was questioned extensively about the car and the sticker and who made a drawing of the car – only made a statement about a ‘Shell BP’ sticker. That statement is insufficient to assume that the car at that time was used by the SPDC or an SPDC official. This is all the more true since at that time the SPDC had long since ceased using the name Shell BP. Furthermore, the claimants’ assertion that the SPDC frequently used Peugeots 504 in those days is inconsistent with [witness 1]’s statement that the car was an ‘official government car’ only used by officers. Lastly, the court sees no reason to order the defendants to launch a further investigation into the ‘ [Name Mr] ‘ mentioned by [witness 1] in his statement, as requested by the claimants. The mere mention of this name during the witness examination of 2019 is insufficient reason for doing so. the court sees no reason to order the defendants to launch a further investigation into the ‘ [Name Mr] ‘ mentioned by [witness 1] in his statement, as requested by the claimants. The mere mention of this name during the witness examination of 2019 is insufficient reason for doing so. the court sees no reason to order the defendants to launch a further investigation into the ‘ [Name Mr] ‘ mentioned by [witness 1] in his statement, as requested by the claimants. The mere mention of this name during the witness examination of 2019 is insufficient reason for doing so.

2.10.

[witness 1] has stated that “ Shell BP gave me money”. In his account of how this all happened, he testified that [main prosecution witness 1] gave him 30,000 naira in cash, saying:

“That Shell will pay us. They said that, it’s Shell who gives you this money, and if you go to court later on, you should say this about MOSOP so that Shell can give us more things”. They said, “Accept this money so that later on, if we need anything for the court case”, then I would have to speak out against [Q]’s case.”

When asked how he knew that the money had come from Shell, [witness 1] tested as follows:

“ [main prosecution witness 1] gave the money to me. He said, “You can support this case against MOSOP, and Shell can then come into Ogoniland. (…) [main prosecution witness 1] himself said to me that he was given the money by Shell. (…) And he told me that if we can follow this case against MOSOP, that Shell would do more than just this.”

2.11.From this statement, it can only be deduced that [main prosecution witness 1] told [witness 1] that ‘Shell’ would pay him and that the money [witness 1] was handed had come from ‘Shell’, not that the money was , in fact, the SPDCs. Nor can any indications about the SPDC’s involvement in the alleged witness bribery be derived from [main prosecution witness 1]’s promise of a job at ‘Shell’, about which both [witness 1] and [witness 2] made statements. There are no concrete facts and circumstances that suggest that [main prosecution witness 1]’s promise can be attributed to the SPDC. This promise was also not fulfilled, unlike [main prosecution witness 1] ‘s promise of a government position, which was followed by the appointments of [witness 1] , [witness 2] and [witness 4] , which the claimants have entered into evidence.

2.12.

[witness 10] , one of the attorneys during the trial, stated that [witness 1] had told him that Shell and the government had paid him 30,000 naira to furnish proof. [witness 10] tested that [witness 1] had told him the following:

“Cash. It was given in cash. So he put it in writing, he swore to it in an affidavit and Shell never challenged him. Shell never challenged him. (…) I just said [witness 1] said he was given 30,000 naira to give evidence against the defendant, to make a statement and then be a witness in court, against the defendant, by telling a lie against the defendant. Hey

had made the statement to the police implicating the defendant. (…) Well, he said that the official who gave him the money, right, was an official of Shell and the government official was present when he was given the money.”

2.13.As with [witness 1] ‘s statement, the mentioned involvement of the SPDC is not supported by objective facts and circumstances. [witness 10] also wrongly assumes that the SPDC has never denied or expressed doubts about the alleged witness bribery. Furthermore, rather than a witness statement about the order to furnish proof [witness 10]’s statement reads more as a legal argument, which also brings up accusations (such as the watching brief) regarding which the court has already taken binding final decisions.

2.14.

[witness 2] previously made a statement in his affidavit of 27 February 1995, which forms part of the case file. On 19 March 2004, he made a comprehensive sworn statement in the [trial X] in the United States. His affidavit states that the police asked him to sign a prepared incriminating statement against [Q] and:

“That when I refused to sign the Statement [main prosecution witness 1] brought out N30,000.00 and told me that was my own share of money given to the witnesses by government and Shell and that if I signed the Statement I would go with the said N30,000.00 and that I would always be given money and other benefits including:

(a) My being employed in Gokana Local Government (…)

(b) My being given weekly allowances of between N1,000.00 and N2,000.00 as the case may be.

(c) My being promised award of contracts from Shell and OMPADEC.”

2.15.

In these proceedings, [witness 2] has testified that following the murder of the four traditional Ogoni leaders, [main prosecution witness 1] took him and several other witnesses to Port Harcourt, where he stayed in a building of the Federal Investigation and Intelligence Bureau (FIIB) in the government residential area (GRA). Several days after he had given a statement, in which he incriminated no one, the police presented a statement which he had to copy verbatim and sign. He received 30,000 naira for his police statement in the presence of police chief [main prosecution witness 1] and other witnesses. [witness 2] has stated the following about this:

“They said they will surely give us — they give us cash. They give us cash that very day, and they promise us a job, and they said because Shell is involved, that they will give us contracts (…) Okay. When this money first — when this first money came in, they give it at our own present, at my own present. They hand it over from the commissioner of police, give it to [main prosecution witness 1] , that this money has come from Shell, and they now said, “Okay, this is Shell staff, this is this person, this is this person “, what their names are.”

When asked who the remark ‘this is Shell personnel’ referred to, [witness 2] answered as follows:

“The person who was standing with them, yes, with the team, the FIIB team and the commissioner (…) The commissioner came in with — with his own team and the Shell staff. (…) Everybody that was – that I mentioned.”

[witness 2] has stated the following about one of the men who was ‘Shell personnel’:

“he brought the money and give it to the – this incident, the commissioner, and the commissioner hand it over to [main prosecution witness 1] at our present — at my present. (…) Openly they said it to us — to me, at my present, that this money come from Shell. (…) Even the commissioner. [main prosecution witness 1] said it too.”

2.16.It is the court’s opinion that [witness 2] , like [witness 1] , assumed that a man was ‘Shell personnel’ without this being supported by objective facts. From his statement it can only be deduced that it was said that someone was ‘Shell personnel’, and that it was said that the money that was handed over had come from ‘Shell’. This does not prove the presence of an SPDC official nor does it prove that the money had indeed come from the SPDC. It is also unclear what the ‘Shell personnel’ supposedly did. Like [witness 1] , [witness 2] attributes a key role to [main prosecution witness 1] , who was always present according to his statement, and who took care of everything, made promises and paid the witnesses.

2.17.

During the [trial X] in the United States, [witness 2] stated that [Attorney] , the attorney for the SPDC, was present at a meeting in the government house in Rivers State in July 1994, where [main prosecution witness 1] made the witnesses sign statements presented to them (see legal ground 4.88 of the interlocutory judgment). In response to the question “ I’m just asking if you recall were there any other people there? Was there anyone, for example, from – that you believed to be from SPDC?” [witness 2] answered as follows in this statement: “That’s what I want to explain to you. Yes. I have somebody who was there. This is a time he came in, he came in with money. Sign this statement that we involve [Q] and the rest and they give you the money and [witness 3] , he was very, very intelligent and he asked [main prosecution witness 1] , where is this money from? He said, this money come from Shell, government of Nigeria. This is why the chairman, the lawyer representative is here.”

In 2004, [witness 2] also stated that he met [Attorney] a second time, namely on the last day the witnesses were instructed about the trial. According to [witness 2]’s statement, there were drinks and snacks and the witnesses received money.

2.18.The defendants have vigorously contested the alleged involvement of [Attorney] , and [Attorney] himself denied any involvement in witness bribery in a written statement dated 19 February 2018.

2.19.

As a witness in these proceedings, [witness 2] has once again tested about an attorney for the SPDC. He has stated that this attorney, carrying a suitcase with money, appeared on the last day the witnesses were prepared by police officers for the trial before the tribunal. [witness 2] has stated that in that period he regularly received a sum of money from [main prosecution witness 1] for his cooperation and that he found out later that one of the individuals who was present at the preparatory sessions was one of the tribunal members. Regarding the final preparatory session, he has stated the following:

“It was by then that very day they said, “Okay, this is Shell lawyer”. (…) Yes, that was the first time he came in, that very person, Shell’s lawyer, and other government personalities, they were all there. (…) What I’m saying, the very — after the training, the final day that — before they will now proceed on the tribunal, the day before, and they now give us money to take, “This money is from Shell”. (…) They hand over the money from commissioner to [main prosecution witness 1] at our present. They say okay — because when all of them came — everybody came in, they introduce themselves. “This is me, this is this person”. So on our mind was that as soon as Shell come in, we think we are going to have money, we think we are going to be big.”

When asked if that ‘attorney for Shell’ had the money on him on that occasion, [witness 2] answered as follows:

N: He brought the — there was a briefcase. In Nigeria is not here. You can even carry 10 million, 20 million in a briefcase.

J: So do I understand correctly that the person who was introduced as the Shell attorney indeed carried the briefcase with the money?

N: Yes, he came with the briefcase.

J: And what happened with that suitcase? Did he open it in your presence, right there and then, or did he hand it over to someone else? What happened with the briefcase?

N: He brought the briefcase, hand it over to the commissioner, and that very day, final day, the governor was even there. The governor was there. So they now hand over this money and give it to [main prosecution witness 1] . It was [main prosecution witness 1] that now, we share the money.

J: When the attorney was introduced, did they also give the name of that person?

N: Yes, they gave the name, but it’s a long time. I can’t remember exactly the name. What I can remember is that name “Shell”.

2.20.[witness 2] has given different descriptions of the appearance of the person who, according to him, was an attorney for the SPDC. In 2004, he stated that this person did not wear glasses and referred to him as [Attorney] : “ I say [Attorney] is not all that tall, not much tall, no more let me say he’s not so fat. Moderate size like that. He’s not like black. He’s not black like me. I’m entire black, so he’s not black like me.” In these proceedings, when asked if he remembered the attorney’s appearance, he responded as follows: “ A rather corpulent, tall man, black, a light black skin tone. (…) bold or very little hair (…) about 40 years old”.[witness 2]’s statement in these proceedings about the attorney also deviates from his 2004 statement in other respects. The court agrees with the claimants that [witness 2]’s description of his second meeting with the attorney is partially consistent with his description of the last day of the preparatory sessions – which the attorney for the SPDC also attended, according to him – given during the witness examination in these proceedings. However, in these proceedings, he has expressly stated that he met the attorney for the first time at the end of the preparatory sessions and has not made any statements about a second meeting. Due to the discrepancies between the different statements by [witness 2] about the involvement of [Attorney] /an attorney for the SPDC, it cannot be taken as an established fact that the SPDC or an attorney for the SPDC was involved in the alleged bribery of witnesses. The court does not acknowledge the claimants’ argument that no importance should be attached to these discrepancies because according to them it is understandable that after such a long time [witness 2] is unable to distinguish between the different meetings and cannot recall all the names of the persons who attended them. The discrepancies are too substantial. Apart from the foregoing, there are no specific leads based on which the alleged conduct of [Attorney]/the attorney for the SPDC can be attributed to the SPDC. In 2004, [witness 2] stated the following about this: The court does not acknowledge the claimants’ argument that no importance should be attached to these discrepancies because according to them it is understandable that after such a long time [witness 2] is unable to distinguish between the different meetings and cannot recall all the names of the persons who attended them. The discrepancies are too substantial. Apart from the foregoing, there are no specific leads based on which the alleged conduct of [Attorney]/the attorney for the SPDC can be attributed to the SPDC. In 2004, [witness 2] stated the following about this: The court does not acknowledge the claimants’ argument that no importance should be attached to these discrepancies because according to them it is understandable that after such a long time [witness 2] is unable to distinguish between the different meetings and cannot recall all the names of the persons who attended them. The discrepancies are too substantial. Apart from the foregoing, there are no specific leads based on which the alleged conduct of [Attorney]/the attorney for the SPDC can be attributed to the SPDC. In 2004, [witness 2] stated the following about this: Apart from the foregoing, there are no specific leads based on which the alleged conduct of [Attorney]/the attorney for the SPDC can be attributed to the SPDC. In 2004, [witness 2] stated the following about this: Apart from the foregoing, there are no specific leads based on which the alleged conduct of [Attorney]/the attorney for the SPDC can be attributed to the SPDC. In 2004, [witness 2] stated the following about this:“(…) I said I was bribed by Shell because I know [Attorney] is Shell representative, but he’s not Shell. When I said Shell bribed me and the government OMPADEC for me to testify false witness against [Q] and [witness 9] .”

2.21.

[witness 7] has stated that “ Shell bribed us”. He has stated that he was in Giokoo on the day of the murders and that [main prosecution witness 1] , who coordinated everything, told him to testify against [B] . [witness 7] has stated the following about this:

“He [ [main prosecution witness 1] , court] said to me that I had to be a witness in the case and afterwards I would be paid by Shell. (…) After everything Shell promised a house in Abuja — a house in Abuja, and also a job. But none of that happened.

When asked who had promised him these things, he stated as follows:

“ [main prosecution witness 1] and the Shell people. Sometimes we are not able to know whether they are Shell or government because it’s not written on the person himself, you know, what company they represent or what authority they represent.”

[witness 7] has stated that [main prosecution witness 1] told him what to say ‘ So that Shell could give them money .’ He has given evidence about the preparatory sessions for the trial before the tribunal, which he and other witnesses received in the government residential area in Port Harcourt, where they stayed for several months. When asked about the role of Shell, he tested as follows:

“Y: I don’t know exactly who was who, but, again, [main prosecution witness 1] was the co-ordinator for Shell, and Shell arranged everything through [main prosecution witness 1] , because he co-ordinates everything.

J: How do you know that he coordinated everything for Shell?

Y: That’s all that I know. Shell did so many things, they also killed many people, and this is also why in our village we said we needed —

J: Basically, you’re saying Shell was in control, Shell did everything, and this is why [main prosecution witness 1] did all these things for Shell; is that how I should understand what you’re saying?

Y: It is Shell that caused the problem. It sponsored the problems in Ogoniland.

J: (…) Did [main prosecution witness 1] ever tell you directly that he was actually co-ordinating everything for Shell or on Shell’s behalf?

Y: He didn’t tell me explicitly, but we know that he is one of the co-ordinators because one of his relatives was (one of the leaders) in Giooko.

J: Might it well be that he was doing all of this for his own family because a family member was killed and not on Shell’s behalf?

Y: We know that Shell did everything. It was before the problems. It happened and it was the reason we know that Shell wants to come, and some people had accepted Shell as such.

J : (…) Did you ever see a representative or an employee of Shell there?

Y: I don’t know whether they were representatives of Shell. All that I know is that Shell is the reason why the problems occurred in Ogoni, and specifically for my village.

J: So basically you’re saying, “Shell caused all the problems, and I don’t know whether I saw specifically a representative of Shell in that time that I was there”?

Y: When these people came, they didn’t say that they were from Shell, but they all co-ordinated through him.

J: Through him, you mean [main prosecution witness 1] ; right?

Y: Yes, I do.

J: And nobody said, “These are people from Shell” or “a lawyer from Shell” or anything like that?

Y: No, they didn’t say that. On the day of the trial there will be different people, several people, but we didn’t know who.”

2.22.From [witness 7]’s witness statement it follows that [main prosecution witness 1] played a central role in the witnesses’ preparatory sessions and the payments. This is in line with the witness statements of [witness 1] and [witness 2] . What also applies to [witness 7] is that the SPDC’s involvement assumed by him is not based on concrete facts and circumstances. [witness 7] , [witness 1] and [witness 2] appear to be convinced of the SPDC’s involvement in the bribing of witnesses, about which they have tested. However, that conviction is not based on concrete facts and circumstances, as is apparent from the foregoing, but on assumptions and conclusions drawn by [witness 7] , [witness 1] and [witness 2] as well as on that which [main prosecution witness 1] , and others, told them. However,

2.23.

Such an involvement of the SPDC is also not apparent from the statement of [witness 9] , one of the accused in the Ogoni trial who was acquitted. In his statement, he said that [C] , also known as (hereinafter: [nickname C] ) visited him in his cell and told him that he would be brought to the house of a Shell contractor by the name of [D] after his release. [witness 9] made the following statement about this:

“he told me that he felt — his conscience tells him he should inform me about the plot against us, and that he was — after being released, he was now taken to the residence of one local Shell contractor called [D] . (…) [D]’s house is just opposite the house of the late Chief [X] , who was one of the four chiefs that was killed. (…) […] : The gentleman said “Shell contractor”, that is correct, and not “Shell person”. Interpreter: As I translated, apologies. M: Yes, a local Shell contractor. While in that place, he met some Shell officials (…) some government officials, and some youths, including [witness 1] , [witness 4] , [witness 8] , and some others, and that they were schooling them to come and lie against us, and they were asking him also to do so. But that after a while he — now there was a lawyer who was there who now said that his own evidence might not stand because he was in detention while the murders took place. They were being promised sums of money. They were promised house and contracts. But that some of those youths later told him that they are scared to make those sort of — to tell those sort of lies against people like us, that they feared, and so he came to alert me that that is what is happening.”

It is not in dispute that a contractor is not an employee, official or representative of the SPDC. When asked how [nickname C] knew that the men he had with were ‘Shell officials’, [witness 9] answered as follows:

“My understanding of our conversation is that all the people who were in that meeting were introduced to all of them, because, according to him, they were making promises to get even contracts in Shell and they pointed out that this Shell official is here. They were promised a contract from the oil mineral development commission, which was — they called it OMPADEC. The officials were also there. So these were people introduced to them in that meeting. That’s my understanding of that meeting.”

[witness 9] has tested that [nickname C] told him that the Shell people were from the

“Government Community Relations Department” and that no names were given. [witness 9] has tested that later on he also talked to [D] about the meeting at [D]’s house and that [D] confirmed to him that people from OMPADEC, Shell and the government had attended that meeting.

2.24.

The hearsay testimony of [witness 9] is insufficiently specific to be able to contribute to the evidence that the SPDC was indeed involved in the bribing of witnesses. This all the more true when considering that [D] is named in a written statement of police officer [police officer] (hereinafter: [police officer] ) dated 16 June 1994, which states:

“While both of us were with mr. [D] one [E] a native of Baraka-village came into the house to greet the contractor also.”

According to [police officer]’s testimony, when [E] states to recognize someone as one of the murderers of the four Ogoni chiefs, this person is arrested and taken to the police station. There is no basis to assume – as the claimants assert – that ‘ [E] ‘ is the witness [witness 8] (hereinafter: [witness 8] ), who hails from the same village. Apart from this, this testimony – even if ‘[E] ‘ were to refer to [witness 8] – does not say anything about the involvement of the SPDC in bribing witnesses.

2.25.The other statements made by [witness 9] also do not point to the involvement of the SPDC in bribing witnesses. His testimony about his question to SPDC employee [the employee] to see if the SPDC was willing to intervene, to which [the employee] responded that it was Shell policy to have all things related to the Ogoni case settled abroad and after which [witness 9] only heard through someone else that the SPDC had been ordered from abroad to cease addressing this issue, has nothing to do with witness bribery. In fact, this statement rather indicates that the SPDC did not want to interfere in the course of the trial.

2.26.In conclusion, the alleged involvement of the SPDC in witness bribery is not proven with the statements of the witnesses produced by the claimants. This is also true when viewing these witness statements in conjunction. This means that the claimants have failed to fulfill the first part of the order to furnish proof. The court is unable to assess the second part of the order to furnish proof regarding evidence for the use of the statements of the bribed witnesses – in part also by the SPDC – in each claimants’ husband’s case.

The applications for review

2.27.The claimants argue that the witness statements call for a review of two binding final decisions from the interlocutory judgment, namely in the first place the decision on the accusation that the defendants failed to use their influence – publicly or otherwise – to urge the Nigerian government to hold a fair trial and show clemency to the Ogoni 9. In the interlocutory judgment, the court considered that it had not found any reference points in Nigerian law, for instance in the form of precedents or widely accepted views among Nigerian jurists, for the viability of this accusation and that the defendants – insofar as they were even obliged to stage an intervention based on applicable Nigerian law – have done enough.

2.28.In part based on the witness statements, the claimants argue – in brief – that the neutral position the defendants have bestowed upon themselves does not correspond with the actual situation in which they found themselves. A situation in which human rights violations occurred partially in their names and (whether or not allegedly) in their interest. In the foregoing, the court has concluded that the circumstance that the SPDC was attributed a central role by various persons does not constitute evidence of the SPDC being actually involved in witness bribery. Even if it were possible to determine, based on the witness examinations, that the situation as indicated by the claimants existed, it has neither been argued, nor has it become evident that the defendants had any relevant knowledge of it. This means that this accusation lacks any factual basis. Furthermore, the defendants have contested, stating reasons, that their interest was served with the trial before the tribunal, the sentencing and hanging of the Ogoni 9. Furthermore, there are still no reference points in Nigerian law for the viability of this accusation. The court therefore sees no ground in the witness examinations to renege on its decision that the defendants have done enough, even if and insofar as they had any obligation under applicable Nigerian law to stage an intervention. The fact that the claimants disagree with this decision also does not constitute a ground for reneging on that decision. there are still no reference points in Nigerian law for the viability of this accusation. The court therefore sees no ground in the witness examinations to renege on its decision that the defendants have done enough, even if and insofar as they had any obligation under applicable Nigerian law to stage an intervention. The fact that the claimants disagree with this decision also does not constitute a ground for reneging on that decision. there are still no reference points in Nigerian law for the viability of this accusation. The court therefore sees no ground in the witness examinations to renege on its decision that the defendants have done enough, even if and insofar as they had any obligation under applicable Nigerian law to stage an intervention. The fact that the claimants disagree with this decision also does not constitute a ground for reneging on that decision.

2.29.Secondly, the claimants state that there is a reason for reviewing the conclusion that there is no room for further provision of evidence regarding the SPDC’s offer – as asserted by the claimants – to [the brother of Q] to intervene in the trial on the condition that MOSOP would cease its resistance. The claimants have accused the court of, inter alia, acting contrary to the prognosis prohibition on this issue.

2.30.

From the reports drawn up at the time by [then Managing Director] (hereinafter: [then Managing Director] ), then Managing Director of the SPDC, as well as from the letter of [Q] cited in the interlocutory judgment, it follows that in his talks with [the brother of Q] , [then Managing Director] distinguished between two different topics: 1) the response of the SPDC to the request of [the brother of Q] to intervene in the trial, and 2) a dialogue with or without a contribution from the SPDC to specific projects. These reports state that the question to intervene in the trial was consistently and unconditionally answered in the negative, with the explanation that the SPDC does not interfere in such matters as it goes against its business principles. The conditions set by [then Managing Director] regard the second topic of discussion. In their accusation, the claimants have linked those conditions to the response to [the brother of Q]’s request to intervene in the trial. The same has happened in the testimony of [witness 9] , who has stated the following:

“But [Q] — I’m always calling him [Q] , because that’s what I call him, but when I say [Q] , I mean [Q] — [Q] showed me a note from his younger brother , Dr [the brother of Q] , that he had with the managing director of Shell in Nigeria, one [then Managing Director] , who demanded as a condition for their intervening in that matter to withdraw those charges that we stopped our international campaigns against Shell.”

2.31.The claimants’ remark about acting contrary to the prognosis prohibition, they fail to recognize that the court held that they had failed to argue convincingly that and why the content of the [then Managing Director] reports, which incidentally they had taken as starting points for other accusations, incorrectly reflect the matters discussed. Their reference to written statements, drawn up years after the fact and now supplemented with hearsay testimony of [witness 9] , is insufficient. Since the claimants have failed to meet their obligation to furnish facts, the provision of evidence cannot be decided on.

2.32.The court would like to add that the offer of proof can also be disregarded for being irrelevant. The claimants’ accusation appears to be motivated by their opinion that the SPDC had an obligation under applicable Nigerian law to intervene in the trial in favor of [Q] and should not have attached conditions to this. However, the claimants have failed to argue concretely that and why this is the case. Nor have they asserted that the requested intervention in favor of [Q] – which was the specific subject at hand – would have had an effect on the trials against their husbands and on the outcome of those trials. This is all the more relevant since the requested intervention concerned the personal circumstances of [Q] , namely his health. Since the claimants have failed to argue all of this,

2.33.In conclusion, the applications are rejected and the claimants are ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings, which are estimated up to this judgment at € 2,870 (€ 618 in court fee and € 2,252 in lawyers’ fees (4 points at rate II) .

3 The decision

The court:

3.1.dismisses the applications;

3.2.orders the claimants to pay the costs of the proceedings, estimated at € 2,870;

3.3.declares this judgment provisionally enforceable as regards the cost order.

This judgment was rendered by judges mr. L. Alwin, mr. B. Meijer and mr. AC Bordes and pronounced in open court on 23 March 2022.

Ogoni 9 Widows Dutch court case against Shell was first posted on January 16, 2023 at 12:56 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 broadband service is absolute garbage. AVOID AVOID AVOID

Sun, 01/15/2023 - 09:03

“If you value your hard earned cash, time and sanity please avoid Shell Broadband, their hardware is shoddy at best, they clearly don’t value the customer and their service is absolute garbage. AVOID AVOID AVOID”

Shell Energy Broadband Reviews recently posted on broadband.co.uk

Reviewer Donna: Location Lancashire: Date 2022-12-21

Comments

My service with shell went live on the 1st Nov 22, a few drop outs of service occasionally, but nothing major, it did not affect streaming or kids gaming etc, so we can live with it. The 9th December was the last day of any broadband (I miss watching Netflix on a big screen) The router is just displaying the information light and nothing more, its not making any attempt to connect, so I make all the required checks, resets, switching it off etc to no avail. I get through to Shell quite easily and the tech guy seems genuinely helpful, line tests carried out etc and says open reach need to come out which will take 3 to 4 days, but nothing is confirmed until I hear from them. I explained that I felt the router was probably the issue and questioned if it would make more sense to have a new router sent out first rather than waste time and money on an engineer, he says its not possible.

4 days later open reach have attended and my line is fine, now ringing customer service at this point consists of being hung up on several times, being rudely advised I don’t understand the royal mail strikes, being told that Shell won’t even consider me sending a courier to collect a new router, let alone them send it via a different courier, so that new router I suggested 4 days ago is going to make its slow journey to me only now.

Complaint made, call handler was actually understanding unlike her other colleagues. I have had a credit made to my account which is great. However 11 days of no broadband later, new router is here and it’s not working again, not even attempting to connect and yes I call Shell and I get through easily enough and tech guy understanding and pleasant but it’s been 11 days without any service and Shell are just going to send yet another router in the hope that I have had just been extremely unlucky with my routers and a third one will do the trick. So day 11 of no service after only joining them less than 6 weeks ago. Man I wish I had stayed with Vodafone now, dam cost of living trying to tighten my belt and save a few quid, well it has certainly backfired!!!!
If you value your hard earned cash, time and sanity please avoid Shell Broadband, their hardware is shoddy at best, they clearly don’t value the customer and their service is absolute garbage. AVOID AVOID AVOID

Reviewer Chris: Location Heywood: Date 2022-12-21

Comments

I’ve used Shell/post office for about 7 years now and had the same box, generally I have no complaints as it has ran ok but speed could be better.

A couple of months ago it went down and I called Shell a couple of time because it was unusable so eventually they said we will get an engineer out. Then the box started running fine again and they never turned up but my wife waited in for them.

And now box has gone down again, I called Shell and their customer service was very disappointing as the guy put me through technical and whilst I was on hold they all finished for the day.

So the next day I cancelled my contract and gone with someone else.

They did say a while ago I may need a new box so that was all I want but they seem reluctant to give me one.

I wouldn’t bother using Shell

Reviewer Colin Flowerday: Location Holt Norfolk: Date 2022-12-21

Comments

Shell Energy Broadband as I was with the GPO and had excellent service with them! Shell are A rip off Energy company who want us to pay Five Grand per year for our energy they are a,Rip off so call Vodafone on 08080408408 and had hey they will save you a Fortune as Vodafone are a lot cheaper and shell are worser than Kcom!!

Shell broadband service is absolute garbage. AVOID AVOID AVOID was first posted on January 15, 2023 at 6:03 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

Treated with contempt and disrespect by Shell Energy

Sat, 01/14/2023 - 13:20

“Left without broadband for weeks. Terrible company.”

Shell Energy Broadband Reviews recently posted on broadband.co.uk

Reviewer Erica Unsworth: Location Bury: Date 2022-12-20

Comments

Had trouble from the beginning!! Keeps looking signal. Even when I’m sat next to router. Sent me a twin pack extender. worst instructions going. I can’t wait for my contract to end.

Reviewer Daisy Lisemore: Location Towcester: Date 2022-12-20

Comments

Although I have never had an issues with the broadband itself, their customer service when I left to join another supplier was absolutely appalling. I was a long term customer for 4 years and I was treated with contempt and disrespect. I would not recommend this company to anyone

Reviewer Rebecca: Location Chippenham: Date: 2022-12-19

Comments

Router failed within a few months. Left without broadband for weeks. Terrible company.

Reviewer Andrew: Location Inverness: Date 2022-12-19

Comments

If I could give zero I would. Customer service re my Mothers account dreadful. Tried to close her phone account for over a year. Like talking to a brick wall when you get through. DO NOT EVER USE THIS CO.

Treated with contempt and disrespect by Shell Energy was first posted on January 14, 2023 at 10:20 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

Oil giant Shell to pay tax in UK for first time in six years amid huge profits

Sat, 01/07/2023 - 14:59

Daily Record

Oil giant Shell to pay tax in UK for first time in six years amid huge profits

The firm made 9.5 billion dollars in profit in just three months last year.

By Rory Cassidy: Daily Record Reporter: 22:18, 6 JAN 2023

Oil giant Shell is set to pay tax in the Uk for the first time in six years.

The firm, which last paid money to HMRC in 2017, will fork out after making huge global profits last year. The energy firm said it expected to “take a hit” of around $2bn (£1.7bn) on profits in the UK and the European Union in the final three months of the year.

A windfall tax has been imposed on energy companies by governments to try and capture some of the massive profits they have made through high oil and gas prices. The BBC reports that Shell has not disclosed how much UK tax it will finally pay, but that it’s understood the figure could be lower than forecast.

The amount of tax shelled out by oil and gas companies in the UK can fluctuate. Investment in areas such as renewable energy, decommissioning of North Sea oil platforms, and losses can reduce the overall bill. Shell’s profits hit $9.5bn across its global business between July and September last year.

At the time, the company said it was exempt from paying tax because of large investments in the UK meaning it had not made a profit on British shores. But earlier today, the firm said it expects to pay some tax here for the first time since 2017. The announcement comes after the UK Government increased tax on the profits made from extracting UK oil and gas.

The policy, which is called the Energy Profits Levy and is more commonly referred to as the windfall tax, raised tax to 35% from 25% in November. Shell did not break down how the $2bn hit to its earnings in the final months of 2022 would be split between the UK and the EU.

Oil and gas prices began to rise after the end of Covid lockdowns but surged after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, resulting in bumper profits for energy companies including the likes of Shell and BP in 2022. Amidst soaring energy bills, the government introduced the windfall tax to help fund a scheme to restrict gas and electricity bills.

Firms have been able to reduce the amount of tax they pay by factoring in losses or spending on things like decommissioning North Sea oil platforms., resulting in companies such as BP and Shell paying little or no tax in the UK in recent years. The Energy Profits Levy also allows energy companies to apply for tax savings worth 91p of every £1 invested in UK fossil fuel extraction.

There are also fears that tougher taxes could discourage oil and gas companies from investing in UK renewable energy. Offshore Energies UK previously said higher taxes would “undermine” an industry which generates 200,000 jobs. Despite the higher taxes, Shell reported $30bn profit in the first nine months of last year and is on track for bumper annual profits for 2022.

The company said it expects to have paid between $4.3bn and $4.7bn in global taxes over the final three months of 2022. Rival BP said it would pay $800m in windfall tax for 2022. It is due to publish its full results for the 2022 financial year on 2 February. Like the UK, the EU has imposed a windfall tax – 33% on fossil fuel firms’ profits and one from rising electricity costs.

FULL ARTICLE

Oil giant Shell to pay tax in UK for first time in six years amid huge profits was first posted on January 7, 2023 at 11:59 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

It’s a new year and Shell has a new boss, but the same old greed just won’t cut it

Sat, 01/07/2023 - 14:49

It’s a new year and Shell has a new boss, but the same old greed just won’t cut it

The company has to start paying for its share of the climate damage oil and gas have caused around the world. It certainly has the funds

inews.co.uk: January 6, 2023 11:41 am(Updated 1:07 pm) OPINION By Areeba Hamid As we welcome in a new year, Shell welcomes its new CEO, Wael Sawan. Coming from Shell’s alternative energy division, Sawan’s appointment has already sparked speculation that this could mark a departure from the era of predecessor Ben van Beurden who presided over – among other things – Shell’s ignominious departure from the Alaskan Arctic, its first dividend cut since the Second World War and a loss in a landmark climate court case in the Netherlands. The company was also recently the focus of an documentary exposé and stinging spoof from comedian Joe Lycett. Sawan steps up at an interesting time for the fossil fuel industry.

While households up and down the UK freeze, and struggle to put food on the table, Shell has made the most of tax breaks to avoid paying any windfall tax whatsoever. It’s even milked £100m from taxpayers. And instead of investing profits back into clean, cheap renewable power which could alleviate bills and shore up UK energy security, Shell has funnelled billions of that extra cash back into shareholder pockets in the form of buybacks.

This doesn’t go unnoticed. Fossil fuel companies are fast becoming the tobacco-style pariahs of our day.

Sawan could make a choice to turn Shell around, to future-proof the company and pivot to delivering cheap, clean renewables in a fair way. Ultimately, Shell needs to stop drilling, and to start paying for its share of the climate damage oil and gas have caused around the world. With the oil and gas industry having made £2.3bn per day in profits over the last 50 years, they can surely find the funds.

New year, new boss – but the same old Shell just isn’t going to cut it.

Areeba Hamid is Greenpeace UK’s co-executive director

FULL ARTICLE

It’s a new year and Shell has a new boss, but the same old greed just won’t cut it was first posted on January 7, 2023 at 11:49 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Rude and unapologetic staff at Shell Energy Broadband

Fri, 01/06/2023 - 12:32

“Takes hours and hours to get through to rude and unapologetic staff. Promises to solve the problem are false. Staff have no idea what’s going on.”

Shell Energy Broadband Reviews recently posted on broadband.co.uk

Reviewer John: Location Leicester: Date 2022-12-12

Comments

No problems when with the Post Office but now continual problems with Shell broadband speed and its continuity. I’m supposed to receive a speed between 35 Mbs and 45 Mbs. I get as low as 11 Mbs. I complain for which one has to wait around 30 mins for someone to answer the phone. I’m told that I must give 3 possible days when an engineer needs to visit but be prepared to be charged if I’m not at home but for which there is no reciprocal arrangement if the engineer doesn’t turn up, which has happened to me. In fact the problem can be solved without an engineer’s visit and this can be undertaken remotely. Then my speed is restored to around 36 Mbs (min for me should be 35) after which it is slowly decreased until I have to complain again. It seems like I’m being robbed of the service I pay for. As it can be quickly reset I believe that it is my ISP who is throttling my speed. Broken contract – new provider here I come.

Reviewer Isaac: Location Manchester: Date 2022-12-11

Comments

I’m using homephone only. DON’T TOUCH! Features start and stop at random. Takes hours and hours to get through to rude and unapologetic staff. Promises to solve the problem are false. Staff have no idea what’s going on. No response to formal complaints. Only good at raising prices!

Reviewer Catharine Bohm: Location Hordle: Date 2022-12-10

Comments

The customer service is non existent. Nobody answers the phone or responds to emails. Our Internet went wrong and our landlines died. The only way to rectify the matter was to find a different provider. Use this lot at your own risk.

Reviewer Tim: Location Preston: Date 2022-12-13

Comments

My sister in law is struggling to make ends meet and is trying to reduce outgoings. Although not eligible for best shell offer as she is already a customer, she rang them, explaining her problems and they came back with a really good deal. Well done Shell broadband. You have helped save her Xmas.

Reviewer David: Location Nr. Swansea: Date 2022-12-12

Comments

Although there’s been some awful reviews posted about Shell broadband I can only speak as I find, was originally with Post office broadband till Shell took them over, haven’t noticed any difference in broadband speed or reliability issues, still satisfied with the service I’m getting, the only gripe I’ve got is if you need to contact them by telephone be prepared for a very long wait before an agent your call

Rude and unapologetic staff at Shell Energy Broadband was first posted on January 6, 2023 at 9:32 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 to pay £1.7bn in UK and EU windfall taxes

Fri, 01/06/2023 - 12:01

SkyNews

Shell to pay £1.7bn in UK and EU windfall taxes

It comes after bosses at the London-listed oil giant said in October they had not paid any UK windfall taxes due to heavy investment in the North Sea.

By Sarah Taaffe-Maguire, business reporter Friday 6 January 2023 10:17, UK

Windfall tax payments are to cost Shell around $2bn (£1.7bn), the oil and gas company has revealed.

The cost of the UK’s energy profits levy and the EU’s recently announced solidarity contribution will reach $2bn (£1.7bn) in the final three months of its financial year, the firm said in a fourth quarter 2022 update.

It did not specify how much was owed to the UK and EU, separately.

It told investors on Friday it will not face a hit to earnings for the final quarter of 2022 due to the increased UK energy profits levy and additional EU taxes.

The UK windfall tax, announced under Rishi Sunakas chancellor, means oil and gas firms will pay a 25% levy on profits, which will be phased out when energy prices return to normal – but companies will get tax breaks worth 91p for every £1 invested.

Windfall taxes are one-off taxes imposed by government, targeting firms that have benefited from sky-high global energy costs.

Energy costs soared particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as countries rushed to wean themselves off Russian gas.

Most recent figures for Shell show the company reported operating profits of $9.5bn (£8.19bn) in the third quarter of this year. The October numbers were lower than that of the three previous months, but still more than double the figures for the same period in 2021.

Bosses at the London-listed oil giant said at the time that they had not paid any UK windfall taxes due to heavy investment in the North Sea.

The chief executive of Shell had previously called on the government to tax oil and gas companies in order to protect the poorest people in society from soaring energy costs.

Speaking at the Energy Intelligence Forum in London last year, Ben van Beurden said: “One way or another there needs to be government intervention that somehow results in protecting the poorest.

“That probably may then mean that governments need to tax people in this room to pay for it.”

His comment was in reference to companies rather than individuals, a Shell spokesperson later said.

The UK’s windfall tax payment is being paid in the final quarter of 2022 as the tax impact is deferred, Shell added.

The company also warned that prolonged outages at two liquefied natural gas plants in Australia had hit production.

FULL ARTICLE

Shell to pay £1.7bn in UK and EU windfall taxes was first posted on January 6, 2023 at 9:01 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 to take $2 billion fourth-quarter tax hit after new EU, UK levies

Fri, 01/06/2023 - 11:48

cnbc

Shell to take $2 billion fourth-quarter tax hit after new EU, UK levies

PUBLISHED FRI, JAN 6 2023 2:43 AM EST UPDATED FRI, JAN 6 20238:01 AM EST Ruxandra Iordache KEY POINTS
  • Shell expects a fourth-quarter tax hit of $2 billion, following additional levies in the U.K. and European Union.
  • The company expects “significantly higher” results from its liquefied natural gas trading performance in the fourth quarter, compared with July-September.
  • Shell will release its final fourth-quarter results on Feb. 2.

Oil and gas major Shell said Friday it expects to take a $2 billion hit for the fourth quarter as a result of new taxes in the European Union and U.K.

“The Q4′22 earnings impact of recently announced additional taxes in the EU (the solidarity contribution) and the deferred tax impact from the increased UK Energy Profits Levy is expected to be around $2 billion,” the company said in a trading update.

The EU agreed in September that oil and gas companies will pay a levy on surplus profits made in 2022 or 2023. The “solidarity contribution” will see firms pay 33% of profits above their average taxable profits.

Meanwhile, U.K. Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt said in his November Autumn Statement that the energy industry will be subject to an expanded windfall tax of 35%. The levy, which ends on 31 March 2028, is expected to raise in excess of $40 billion over the next six years, the government said at the time.

Energy companies’ revenues have soared following Western sanctions blocking access to Russian supplies. In June, U.S. President Joe Biden remarked that Shell’s fellow oil major ExxonMobil had made “more money than God.”

In November, Shell’s U.K. Country Chair David Bunch signaled that the company would evaluate each of its projects in the country on a case-by-case basis, following the windfall tax announcement.

“To deliver the very significant investment needed, which for Shell UK will be up to £25 billion in the next 10 years providing projects remain economically viable under the revised tax regime, the energy sector needs to have confidence that there will now be a stable investment climate following a period of considerable uncertainty,” the company said in a statement emailed to CNBC Friday.

Shell, which will release its full fourth-quarter results on Feb. 2, said it expects between $550 million and $750 million of losses in adjusted earnings over the period. The EU and U.K. levies will not affect the adjusted earnings figures, the company said.

Shell’s adjusted earnings more than doubled on the year to $9.45 billion in the third quarter, after logging a record profit of $11.5 billion in the three-month April-June period. In October, it revealed plans to raise its dividend per share by roughly 15% for the fourth quarter.

In its Friday trading statement, Shell said it expects its liquefied natural gas (LNG) volumes to have dropped to between 6.6 million-7 million metric tons in the fourth quarter, owing to longer-than-expected outages at two Australian facilities. Despite this, the energy major said it anticipates its LNG trading results to be “significantly higher” than in the third quarter.

In contrast, Shell expects its fourth-quarter oil products trading results to be “significantly lower” than in the previous quarter.

Correction: The headline and text of this story have been updated to reflect that Shell expects to take a fourth-quarter tax hit of $2 billion.

FULL ARTICLE

Shell to take $2 billion fourth-quarter tax hit after new EU, UK levies was first posted on January 6, 2023 at 8:48 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

Pages

The Fine Print I:

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.

Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.

The Fine Print II:

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.

It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.