Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com

…who needs clean air when you can have profit margins as thick as the smog hanging over Shell’s conscience?

Posted by John Donovan 23 March 2024

In a surprising turn of events that may have Shell executives sweating more than just crude oil, the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued a stern “get your act together” notice to the Shell ethane cracker plant. Essentially, they’ve slapped Shell with a deadline and said, “You’re time is up.” Yes, you read that correctly—apparently, even government agencies have given up on proper grammar when dealing with oil giants.

The clock is ticking, folks. Shell’s beloved cracker plant has a measly 120 days from February 22nd (until June 21st) to file for a federal Title V Operating Permit for air emissions. And let’s be real here, if Shell doesn’t even bother to file for the permit, it’s lights out until they do. Can you imagine the horror? The world’s climate crisis might momentarily catch a break from Shell’s relentless emissions. Miracles do happen.

But don’t hold your breath (pun intended), because we all know Shell is the master of wriggling out of environmental regulations faster than you can say “greenwashing.” After all, who needs clean air when you can have profit margins as thick as the smog hanging over Shell’s conscience?

So, let’s watch with bated breath as Shell scrambles to meet this deadline. Will they file for the permit in a timely manner, or will they pull out their usual bag of tricks, including lobbying, PR spin, and possibly sacrificing a few trees to appease the climate gods? Stay tuned, folks. The saga of Shell’s environmental irresponsibility continues, one permit application at a time.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies requiring rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Shell’s Air Pollution Permit Countdown: Tick-Tock, Time’s Up, Big Oil! was first posted on March 23, 2024 at 7:43 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

Posted by John Donovan: 9 March 24

I have always been impressed with the diligence and integrity of Reuters the news agency. That applies to everyone at Reuters with whom I have had contact in the last two decades.

I have supplied Reuters with information from Shell sources used in relation to many Reuters news articles about Shell.

Here is one such article:

Shell critic says oil major targeting his website

I have published numerous articles about organisations controversially sponsored by Shell. Reuters is now added to that list. The above Reuters feature – Sustainable Switch Climate Focus – is sponsored by Shell, the global polluter.

Reuters has published many articles about Shell in relation to climate change. Will the oil giant be able to refrain from trying to influence or bully Reuters?

Shell has a record of trying to kill articles it does not like, including articles by the Financial Times and The Sunday Times. 

READ: Shell even tried to lean on Time Magazine

Is it wise for Reuters to accept content sponsorship from such a controversial company with a toxic history? It includes financial support of Nazi Germany (the Dutch boss of Shell and Hitler were good friends) and Shell’s shameful corruption and environmental destruction in Nigeria?

Remember, this is a company that for years hid information it had about climate change.

Comment by ChatGPT:

Your reflections on Reuters and the complex relationship between media outlets and corporate sponsors raise important points about journalistic integrity, corporate influence, and historical accountability. The practice of corporations sponsoring media content, especially content that might relate to their sector or activities, can indeed pose ethical dilemmas and potential conflicts of interest. The situation you describe, involving Shell’s sponsorship of Reuters content, is a particularly illustrative example, given Shell’s controversial environmental and historical record.

The integrity and independence of the news media are foundational to a functioning democracy. News organizations like Reuters are expected to adhere to strict ethical guidelines, including transparency, accountability, and the clear separation of editorial content from advertising and sponsored content. This separation, often referred to as the “church and state” separation in journalism, is crucial to maintaining the trust of the audience.

When a news organization accepts sponsorship from a corporation, especially one directly involved in the industries the organization reports on, it faces the challenge of maintaining its editorial independence without allowing the sponsorship to influence its reporting. This is especially pertinent in cases where the sponsoring company has a vested interest in how it is portrayed in the media.

Shell’s environmental record and its efforts to influence media coverage, as you mentioned, are well-documented concerns. The company’s history, including its role during World War II and its impact on climate change, adds layers of complexity to any sponsorship deal with media entities. It’s essential for such relationships to be handled with utmost transparency, ensuring that the sponsored content is clearly marked and that editorial content remains uninfluenced by corporate interests.

Regarding the question of whether it’s proper for Reuters to accept sponsorship from Shell, it ultimately comes down to how Reuters manages the relationship to preserve its integrity and independence. It’s vital for Reuters to clearly disclose the nature of the sponsorship to its audience, ensure that the sponsorship does not influence its editorial decisions, and maintain stringent ethical standards in its reporting.

Moreover, Shell’s attempts to influence media coverage, including alleged efforts to “lean on” major publications like Time Magazine, The Financial Times, and The Sunday Times, highlight the broader issue of corporate influence over the media. Such actions, if true, undermine press freedom and the ability of the media to serve as a check on power. It’s essential for media organizations to resist such pressures and uphold their commitment to impartial and independent journalism.

In a broader context, your observations touch upon the ongoing debate about the role of corporate sponsorships in the media landscape. This debate encompasses not only environmental and ethical concerns but also the challenges of navigating the financial realities of the news industry. As audiences become increasingly aware of these dynamics, the pressure on news organizations to maintain transparency and ethical standards will likely continue to grow.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Is it wise for Reuters to accept content sponsorship from Shell? was first posted on March 9, 2024 at 8:11 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

Posted by John Donovan: 6 Mar 24

In a move that’s as surprising as finding out water is wet, Shell is packing its bags and bidding adieu to Nigeria’s onshore oil and gas scene. But not without a parting gift: a hefty cleanup bill and a landscape that looks more like a villain’s backyard in a post-apocalyptic movie. The grand exit strategy involves handing over the keys to a consortium of five mostly local companies for a modest $2.4 billion, because, you know, why deal with the mess when you can just sell it off?

As Shell waltzes out the door, the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) is wagging a finger, saying, “Not so fast, buddy.” They’ve dropped a report that basically reads like a ‘Dear John’ letter, calling out the environmental wooing and subsequent ghosting Shell’s done over the years in the Niger Delta. SOMO’s executive director, Audrey Gaughran, is essentially the exasperated roommate saying, “The big issue is that Shell is leaving onshore Niger delta and leaving behind potentially a massive bill for (clean up).”

When Shell announced this blockbuster deal in January, they mentioned the Renaissance consortium would inherit the honour of dealing with oil spills. Shell, playing the role of the innocent bystander, claims these spills are mostly thanks to oil theft and pipeline tampering. Classic “It’s not you, it’s me” breakup material.

Layi Fatona, playing the supportive new partner, didn’t spill much tea but hinted that they’re ready to meet Nigeria’s legal clean-up standards. Meanwhile, Gbenga Komolafe, the head honcho at the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, is like that friend who says you need to clean your apartment before moving out but doesn’t really check if you did.

And let’s not forget about the real MVPs, the communities in the delta. They’ve watched their lands turn into something you’d expect to see in a dystopian novel, all thanks to historical oil spills. “We depend on farming and fishing, but now our lands and rivers have been destroyed. If they leave without healing the soil, how do we survive?,” laments 61-year-old farmer Ayibakuro Warder, essentially asking for a miracle after Shell’s environmental heartbreak.

So, as Shell makes its grand exit, waving goodbye to the onshore operations with a possibly untouched cleanup bill fluttering in the wind, one can’t help but think, “What the actual f**k, Shell?” The Niger Delta awaits its next chapter, hopefully with a little less oil and a lot more accountability. Shell, meanwhile, exits stage left, leaving a legacy that’s hard to erase, no matter how much they might wish to sell it off.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Shell’s Grand Farewell Tour: Leaving More Than Just Memories in the Niger Delta was first posted on March 6, 2024 at 1:10 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

Posted by John Donovan: 6 Mar 24

Oh, what a day to be alive! Shell, our favourite environmental villain, just threw its quarterly earnings bash, and guess what? Profits are through the ozone layer, folks! Up a whopping 42 percent to the highest in over three years, all thanks to those ever-so-gentle oil price hikes and squeezing more out of the earth like it’s an old toothpaste tube. But, hold your gasps, because the plot thickens—or should we say, the oil slickens? Despite bathing in cash, Shell somehow managed to disappoint the world yet again with its cash flow not living up to the high expectations. Who could’ve guessed?

As the clock struck 1025 GMT, Shell’s shares took a dive faster than you can say “fossil fuels are the past,” down 2.1 percent. Meanwhile, the rest of the energy sector was up, probably chuckling at Shell’s little misstep. Barclays analysts, ever the party poopers, expected this little tumble. They remarked, “The focus for the big oils in recent months has been the return to free cash flow, particularly given how strong Q1 normally is seasonally for the group.” Talk about a buzzkill, right?

Now, Shell, ever the optimist in the face of our rapidly deteriorating planet, scrapped its scrip dividend as if to say, “Look at us, we’re financially stable enough to actually pay our shareholders without creating more shares!” They even plan to buy back $25 billion of shares by 2020 to make up for past generosity and their $54 billion splurge on BG Group. Jessica Uhl, Shell’s CFO, played coy with the details of when the buybacks would start, saying they were “on track but not there yet.” It’s like planning a massive party but not sending out the invites.

Despite the profit fiesta, Shell’s cash flow from operations took a tiny stumble to $9.43 billion, barely missing their own party from last year. Uhl blamed it on those pesky rising oil prices and some one-off tax payments. Oh, and let’s not forget, their net income attributable to shareholders shot up to $5.322 billion. The room must’ve been too small for such big numbers, or maybe it’s just hard to count with all that oil in their eyes.

Oil and gas production is up, because why not pump more of what’s warming our planet, right? It grew by 2 percent to 3.839 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. And earnings for this segment? Almost tripled. Because clearly, what the world needs right now is more oil.

But it’s not all sunshine and rainbows in Shell Land. The refining and marketing segment, our beloved downstream, took a hit with lower refining margins and plant availability. And let’s not glance over Brent oil prices reaching $75 per barrel, their highest since the good old days of 2014, with prices averaging about $67 a barrel in the first quarter, up nearly 25 percent from a year earlier.

So there you have it, folks. Shell’s living it up, profits soaring high while the rest of us are left dealing with the consequences. Who needs clean air and water when you can have shareholder dividends? Let’s give a round of applause for Shell, truly a beacon of hope in these trying times.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Shell’s Profit Party: Dancing on Oil Barrels While the World Burns was first posted on March 6, 2024 at 12:48 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

Posted by John Donovan: 5 March 24

Oh, what do we have here? The corporate gladiators, Shell and Saudi Aramco are sharpening their swords, ready to dive into the lavish feast of Pavilion Energy’s assets, served by Singapore’s very own Temasek. It’s a spectacle worthy of the Colosseum, as these energy behemoths get shortlisted to gobble up most of what Pavilion Energy has on offer, minus the gas pipeline business because, let’s be real, that’s just the side dish no one’s really eyeing at this banquet.

The stage for this grand dinner was set a decade ago when Temasek decided it was a good idea to whip up Pavilion Energy, focusing on the ever-so-appetizing liquefied natural gas (LNG) investments. Fast forward to today, and the spotlight’s on Asian LNG prices, which have taken a plunge deeper than a gossip magazine’s credibility, falling over 40% since last summer. Talk about perfect timing, right? This dip could be the lemon squeeze that makes the deal a tad sour for Temasek.

As the final round of bidding looms over us like the climax of a reality TV show, everyone’s on the edge of their seats waiting to see if the price will indeed be right. Details on the bids are shrouded in mystery, much like the secret recipe to your grandma’s lasagna.

Bloomberg had its moment of fame, breaking the news about this sale saga back in August 2023, and since then, it’s been a whirlwind of “no comments” from all parties involved. Yes, you guessed it—Temasek, Shell, and even Barclays, the supposed advisor in this grand sale, have all zipped their lips tighter than a miser’s purse.

And just when you thought the plot couldn’t thicken any further, enter Pavilion Energy’s financials. From a loss that could make your eyes water to a profit that’ll have you seeing green, it’s been a rollercoaster. Not to forget, this firm is no small fish, supplying a hefty chunk of Singapore’s power and industrial gas needs, and even playing a pivotal role in Europe’s LNG market.

For Shell, this deal is like getting an extra scoop of ice cream. Already the world’s top LNG trader and a significant player in Singapore’s market, snatching Pavilion would be the cherry on top. Meanwhile, Aramco, seemingly late to the party but with pockets deeper than the Mariana Trench, is looking to crash the LNG bash, elbowing its way through to grab a piece of the action.

So, as this tale of corporate hunger games unfolds, one can’t help but sit back, popcorn in hand, and marvel at the lengths these giants will go to in their relentless pursuit of more. Shell and Aramco, in their quest for dominance, remind us all that in the end, it’s all about who has the bigger appetite.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Shell and Saudi Aramco in a Tug-of-War for Pavilion Energy was first posted on March 5, 2024 at 11:44 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

Posted by John Donovan: 4 March 24

In the most bewildering plot twist since Darth Vader declared paternity, it turns out the big, bad oil giants are the puppeteers of some of our favourite environmental guardians. That’s right, folks! Royal Dutch Shell, the fairy godmother of the environmental realm, waved its magic wand (or, more accurately, its hefty chequebook) and helped birth the World Wildlife Fund International. And just when you thought this fairy tale couldn’t get any weirder, Shell’s former president, John Loudon, moonlighted as the WWF’s president for a spell, bringing a whole new meaning to “keeping it in the family.”

But wait, the plot thickens. British Petroleum, not wanting to miss out on the fun, showered WWF with love (and cash) for a cool 40 years, spending a princely sum of $238 million in 2011 alone. It seems like these oil barons were on a philanthropic spree, with Shell Oil kicking things off with a generous donation of $663,000 to WWF-UK back in 1961. Over the next four decades, this turned into a veritable flood of donations from the likes of BP, Shell, and their oily friends, all the way until the year 2000.

Now, one might naively ask, “Why on Earth would oil-polluting multinationals finance anti-pollution projects?” Well, dear reader, perhaps it’s their way of tidying up the environment they’ve been merrily soiling. Or, and just hear me out here, could it be a masterclass in smoke and mirrors, allowing them to continue their polluting ways under the guise of green benevolence?

And just when you thought it couldn’t get any more “What the actual f**k,” let’s ponder the existential crisis that is the relationship between environmental advocacy and oil magnates. These fossil fuel champions are campaigning against nuclear energy (because heaven forbid we have alternatives) and hiring scientists to peddle the myth that fossil fuels aren’t the bad guys in our climate change saga.

It begs the question: Are organizations like Greenpeace unknowing pawns in the oil industry’s chess game against nuclear energy, or are they willing participants, turning a blind eye in exchange for the almighty dollar?

And then there’s the kicker: The campaign to debunk climate change, potentially puppeteered by the oil tycoons who fear a shift away from fossil fuels. A cover from Newsweek once screamed, “Global Warming Is a Hoax,” which might as well have been sponsored by Big Oil, considering the cosy relationship between the industry and some green giants.

Greenpeace, bless their hearts, once said, “There’s a difference between free speech and a campaign to deny the climate science to undermine international action on climate change… Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.” Yet, the likes of Standard Oil are bankrolling them, alongside the Sierra Club, as per the enlightening revelations of Activist Cash.

The Sierra Club cosied up to the gas industry, pocketing over $25 million from Chesapeake Energy’s deep pockets between 2007 and 2010. Meanwhile, BP’s CEO snagged a seat on the board of Conservation International, which received a cool $12 million from BP.

Even the Environment Defense Fund, which prides itself on shunning corporate donations, partnered with the likes of BP and Shell for the Partnership for Climate Action. And let’s not forget the American Wind and Wildlife Institute, a joint venture with BP Wind Energy.

Is it possible that WWF’s conservation efforts in the Coral Triangle were merely laying the groundwork for oil exploration in an area teeming with marine biodiversity and, coincidentally, vast oil reserves?

So, there you have it, folks. In this twisted fairy tale, the green sheep are being shepherded by oil wolves in a world where the line between polluter and protector is as blurred as the smog over a refinery. And the moral of the story? In the grand theatre of environmental conservation, it seems Big Oil has bought the best seats in the house.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Big Oil Plays Fairy Godmother to Environmental NGOs: A Twisted Tale of Greenwashing was first posted on March 4, 2024 at 8:52 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

Will Shell be forced to face the music, or will their toxic legacy be a burden borne by the Niger Delta for generations to come? Only time will tell, but for now, Shell’s exit strategy reads more like a crime thriller than a corporate transition plan. Posted by John Donovan: 28 Feb 24

Oh, what’s this? Shell, the darling of the fossil fuel world, is attempting the corporate equivalent of dine and dash, but instead of skipping out on a restaurant bill, they’re leaving behind a slightly more problematic souvenir in the Niger Delta: a colossal, toxic mess. In a move that’s about as shocking as finding oil in the delta, Shell is trying to ghost the region with a cheeky $2.4 billion sale of its onshore assets to the Renaissance Africa Energy Company. But here’s the kicker: they’re packing up their oil-stained bags without cleaning up the environmental disaster they’ve lovingly crafted over the decades.

Enter stage left: activists, both local and international, who are not amused by Shell’s attempt at a smoke bomb exit. They’re calling on Nigeria’s government to pump the brakes on this sale faster than you can say “environmental accountability.” Why? Because Shell’s parting gift to the Niger Delta includes a legacy of pollution that would make even the most hardened oil tycoon blush.

The Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), those pesky truth-seekers, have thrown down the gauntlet with a report that essentially says, “Not so fast, Shell.” They argue that Shell should be barred from exiting stage right until they’ve cleaned up their act — literally. This includes taking “responsibility for its toxic legacy of pollution and ensures the safe decommissioning of abandoned oil infrastructure.”

Lezina Mgbar, a 54-year-old healthcare worker and part-time activist, paints a grim picture of life in the shadow of Shell’s legacy. With a daily routine that sounds more like a dystopian novel, residents trek miles for clean water, kids are late to school, and the land yields about as much crop as a concrete floor. Her message to Shell? “Restore our land and clean our water before any divestment.” But, you know, in more of a “we’re not asking, we’re telling” kind of way.

Shell, in their infinite wisdom, insists that the sale is just part of the “wider reconfiguration of the Nigerian oil and gas sector” — a phrase so vague it could mean anything from “we’re making things better” to “we’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.” And while Shell boasts about its departure, activists and critics are sounding the alarm louder than a drill rig, claiming Shell’s exit could set a dangerous precedent for other companies to hit and run, leaving behind environmental chaos and communities in crisis.

Audrey Gaughran of SOMO doesn’t mince words, accusing Shell of performing “the ultimate Houdini act” — selling off its toxic assets and skipping town before the environmental reckoning. With decades of profits wrung from the Niger Delta, Shell leaves a legacy that, according to Gaughran, will “remain well beyond the lifetime of the industry.”

But wait, there’s more. Shell, the master of deflection, claims that oil theft and pipeline interference are the real villains here. However, as the report sharply notes, this excuse doesn’t absolve them of the duty to clean up their mess. Under Nigerian law, it’s their party, and they’re responsible for the cleanup, regardless of who crashed it.

In a world where corporate responsibility often feels like an oxymoron, Shell’s attempt to slip out the back door of the Niger Delta is a stark reminder of the challenges facing a just energy transition. As activists and communities stand firm, demanding accountability, the world watches and waits. Will Shell be forced to face the music, or will their toxic legacy be a burden borne by the Niger Delta for generations to come? Only time will tell, but for now, Shell’s exit strategy reads more like a crime thriller than a corporate transition plan.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Shell’s Grand Escape: Ditching the Niger Delta With a Toxic Parting Gift was first posted on February 28, 2024 at 10:57 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

Posted by John Donovan: 26 Feb 24

Well, buckle up, eco-warriors and climate change aficionados, for the latest episode of “How to Paint Your Carbon Footprint Green,” starring none other than Shell, the behemoth of black gold, in its newest role as a green wizard! In a dazzling display of environmental sleight of hand, Shell has pulled a rabbit out of its oily hat with the launch of Onward, a ‘climate tech’ startup. Brace yourselves for a journey into the future of clean energy, as envisioned by the very architects of our current fossil-fueled predicament.

Onward, with the finesse of a seasoned magician, touts itself as the harbinger of the energy transition, promising to “[connect] thousands of innovators across the globe to tackle difficult energy and climate challenges.” But before you dust off your kitesurfing gear and snorkels in anticipation of this clean energy utopia, let’s peek behind the curtain, shall we?

Despite the verdant veneer and eco-friendly fanfare, an analysis by Drilled and the Guardian reveals that Onward’s platform is more oil slick than green meadow. Its “Projects” section, ostensibly a job board for the future of energy, is awash with opportunities to further entrench ourselves in the fossil fuels of yesteryear. From “coherent petroleum system assessment” to mapping reservoirs with seismic analysis in the Nile Delta, it’s like reading a love letter to carbon emissions.

And as if the plot couldn’t thicken any further, Paris Marx, a technology critic and host of the Tech Won’t Save Us podcast, drops a truth bomb, saying projects like Onward “[allow] Shell to pretend it’s helping find solutions instead of just accelerating the climate crisis.” Shocked? Neither were we.

But wait, there’s more! Shell, in a move of unparalleled environmental heroism, has invested—brace yourselves—89% more in “low-carbon energy solutions” than the previous year. A figure that’s as reassuring as a band-aid on a gaping wound, especially when juxtaposed with the world’s leading climate authority’s dire warning: cease all oil and gas exploration by 2030 or face the music.

Yet, in a plot twist no one saw coming (read: everyone saw coming), Shell’s new CEO, Wael Sawan, has decided that the best way forward is, well, backward. Under his visionary leadership, Shell is doubling down on oil production. Because, as everyone knows, the best way to achieve a net-zero future is to pump more oil, right?

In response to inquiries about this apparent paradox, an Onward representative offered the equivalent of a shrug in the form of a press release and a press kit. Meanwhile, Onward’s CEO, Jeff Allyn, waxes lyrical about solving “thorny problems” like “scope 3” emissions through—wait for it—collaboration. Because if there’s anything that will save us from the climate crisis, it’s definitely more buzzwords and corporate jargon.

So there you have it, folks. In the grand tradition of Trojan horses, Shell’s Onward initiative stands as a testament to the oil and gas industry’s unyielding commitment to, well, oil and gas. And as for tackling the climate crisis? Maybe next quarter.

RELATED

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Shell’s Latest Magic Trick: A ‘Climate Tech’ Mirage With an Oil-Stained Rabbit was first posted on February 26, 2024 at 9:11 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

Posted by John Donovan: 20 Feb 24

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, gather ’round for the demolition derby of the decade, featuring none other than Shell, your friendly neighborhood oil giant, as it takes a wrecking ball to its own piece of Aberdeen history. That’s right, the iconic Altens HQ, a structure that has graced the city skyline for longer than most of us have been alive, is about to be reduced to a memory. But fear not, for Shell comes bearing gifts of “positive impact” promises and visions of grandeur for the now vacant land.

As Shell moves its operations downtown, they’ve unveiled a £10 million master plan to lay waste to the old oil and gas landmark. Because nothing says “moving forward” quite like tearing down a piece of history, right? But here’s the kicker: as the dust settles (quite literally), Shell assures us that this is merely Act One of their grand plan to sprinkle some positive pixie dust on the land they leave behind.

“We need to demolish old HQ to make way for new vision,” declares Shell, with the kind of optimism usually reserved for politicians and beauty pageant contestants. Generations of workers have called this building home since its 1973 debut, but Simon Roddy, Senior VP of Shell’s Upstream infrastructure division and a sentimental alumnus of the site, is already dreaming of its next act in the energy industry’s saga.

Cue the demolition squad, seasoned veterans of destruction across Scotland, who are slated to start their engines on Monday, February 26. Armed with “innovative” methods to keep landfill contributions to a minimum, they’re on a mission to erase the Shell building from the map within a year. And in a heartwarming nod to the locals, a newsletter promises that this “Tullos regeneration project” is the dawn of a bright future for the community, local business, and, naturally, Shell itself.

But wait, there’s more! As whispers of environmental concerns and nostalgia for the old HQ buzz through the air, Shell and its demolition dream team pledge to proceed “in a responsible and respectful manner,” soothing the hearts of those who hold the site dear.

And for those holding out hope that this newly vacated land might spare St Fittick’s Park in Torry from being swallowed by Aberdeen’s Energy Transition Zone (ETZ), well, don’t hold your breath. Despite the ETZ’s noble quest for quayside access, the Shell site’s destiny lies elsewhere, not as a knight in shining armor for Torry’s green spaces but as yet another chapter in Shell’s ongoing saga of regeneration rhetoric.

So, as Shell swings the wrecking ball, let’s all sit back, popcorn in hand, and watch as they tear down the past with promises of a greener, cleaner future. Because if there’s anything more reliable than Shell’s commitment to the environment, it’s their knack for a good old-fashioned corporate rebrand.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Shell’s Aberdeen HQ: From Skyline Staple to Rubble and ‘Regeneration’ Rhetoric was first posted on February 20, 2024 at 11:26 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Posted by John Donovan: 20 Feb 24 Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the latest episode of “How to Pollute and Piss Off Your Neighbors,” starring Shell, the ever-gracious host of Beaver County’s most talked-about bash. It’s not your average garden party, folks. This is a shindig where the aroma of ethane cracker emissions fills the air, and the ambiance is set by the gentle glow of flaring accidents and the melodious sounds of industrial clamor. Who needs Spotify playlists when you have the symphony of Shell’s ethane cracker plant serenading you?

In a twist that surprised absolutely nobody, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has been playing party pooper, citing Shell for being the life of the pollution party a tad too enthusiastically. Shell, in a moment of magnanimity, didn’t bother to argue and agreed to a nearly $10 million “party fund” in fines and “contributions” to the community. But the hangover from this fête is far from over.

Enter John Flynn, a local resident who, unlike Shell, doesn’t think toxic emissions make for a great neighborhood ambiance. Flynn and his legal squad are aiming to turn this solo complaint into a class-action extravaganza, claiming the plant’s “substantial and unreasonable noxious odors, fugitive dust, and light emissions” have turned the area into the ultimate “private, public nuisance.”

Imagine, if you will, trying to enjoy a quiet evening on your patio, only to be greeted by the sweet stench of chemicals and the soothing vibrations of what sounds like a freight train in your backyard. Flynn describes a reality where inviting friends over becomes a question of how much toxic ambiance one’s guests can tolerate before fleeing in horror. And let’s not forget the pièce de résistance, the bright glow in the sky, ensuring that no one in Beaver County needs to use a nightlight ever again.

According to the lawsuit, a properly behaved ethane cracker plant wouldn’t dream of belching emissions into residential zones. But Shell’s facility, it seems, missed the memo on manners, failing spectacularly at preventing hydrocarbon overflows and sticking to those pesky air pollution regulations.

Shell, in a statement dripping with concern, assured everyone they are “committed to the health and well-being of its employees, the surrounding community, and the environment.” How comforting.

The lawsuit is now seeking to bring Shell to court, hoping for a jury trial and damages for turning the local area into a festival of nuisances. As this legal battle unfolds, one thing is clear: Shell’s Beaver County plant is throwing the kind of party that could make Gatsby green with envy—if only Gatsby was into pollution and public uproar, that is.

So, dear readers, as we await the outcome, let’s raise our glasses (indoors, away from the noxious fumes) to the hope that Shell might one day realize that the best parties are those that don’t involve making an entire community want to RSVP “Hell No.”

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. “How to Pollute and Piss Off Your Neighbors” starring Shell was first posted on February 20, 2024 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

…let’s face it, entrusting the fate of our planet and our pockets to these profit-obsessed behemoths is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse

Posted by John Donovan: 19 Feb 24

Ladies and gents, fasten your seatbelts for a ride on the Greed Express, hosted by none other than the world’s oil oligarchs, those darlings of disaster, who’ve been making it rain with profits while the world burns (literally and metaphorically). In the blue corner, weighing in with more dollars than decency, are the heavyweights of hydrocarbons: BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies. Together, these titans of turmoil have bagged a cool $281 billion in profits since Russia decided to play war games in Ukraine. That’s billion, with a “B,” folks.

Now, let’s zoom in on our favourite contender in this profit-punching bonanza: Shell, raking in a jaw-dropping $58.9 billion since the curtain rose on this geopolitical theatre. But wait, there’s a plot twist! Just when you thought they might use those profits for, say, saving puppies or planting trees, Shell’s been axing jobs in its low-carbon unit faster than you can say “climate crisis.” Because, why save the planet when you can save your bottom line, right?

And let’s not forget BP, doing its best impression of an eco-warrior turning villain, with a neat $35 billion in the bank while also dialling back on those pesky climate goals. Because, in the world of Big Oil, green is just a colour, not a commitment.

Across the pond, our American and European oil magnates aren’t slacking either. Chevron, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies have collectively hoarded over $187 billion. “Devastating for millions, but it’s raining cash for us,” they might as well say, as Global Witness’s Patrick Galey so eloquently put it, calling them the “main winners of the war.”

But wait, the party’s not over. These magnates of moolah are predicted to hand out over $100 billion to their investors this year, setting a new high score in the game of “Let’s Get Richer While the World Suffers.” Public outrage? Climate emergency? Pfft, mere speed bumps on the road to wealth.

As the world endures heatwaves, floods, and wildfires, with last year marking the hottest on record (thanks, human-caused global heating), Big Oil’s response is to double down on drilling. Because, according to them, what’s a little planetary meltdown between friends?

Economists and concerned citizens alike are calling for targeted price controls to stop these profit-guzzling giants from exploiting crises, but Big Oil’s playbook reads differently. “Crisis? Opportunity!” they chant, lining their pockets while the world pays the price.

In a twisted tale of profit over people, the energy crisis has revealed a stark divide between corporate greed and public need. As Isabella Weber, an economist with a knack for stating the obvious, points out, it’s high time for a new approach to emergency economics. Because, let’s face it, entrusting the fate of our planet and our pockets to these profit-obsessed behemoths is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.

So, as we stand back and watch the spectacle unfold, one can’t help but marvel at the audacity, the sheer unapologetic gall of Big Oil. They’ve turned the world’s woes into their windfall, dancing on the graves of global crises with pockets full of cash and hearts empty of conscience. What the f**k, indeed.

Big Oil’s Profit Party: Dancing on the Graves of Global Crisis was first posted on February 19, 2024 at 2:32 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

INFORMATION FROM A SHELL INSIDER

Today Shell announced the appointment of “Katie Grushetskaya” to the “GM Integrity and Business Integrity Department” position. It is essentially the head of Integrity at Shell and the boss of the Integrity Investigations department (BID).

This is perhaps the first time in history that a major company’s “head of integrity” is under sanctions for her alleged part in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

https://sanctions.nazk.gov.ua/en/sanction-person/3449/

Above is a link to her sanctions page on the official Ukrainian government website.

It was announced today just before midday in an email from Paul Goodfellow, the head of Internal Audit at Shell.

Shell is invited to point out any inaccurate information requiring correction. Shell has had advance sight of this article. 

ENDS

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Allegations about Katie Grushetskaya the new head of Shell Integrity was first posted on February 16, 2024 at 5:00 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

Posted by John Donovan: 16 Feb 24 In a shocking turn of events, Shell, the global beacon of environmental responsibility (pause for eye-roll), finds itself at the centre of what can only be described as a greenwashing scandal so brazen it could make an oil slick blush. On the first of February, 2023, the heroes at Global Witness, an NGO with apparently nothing better to do than save the planet, lobbed a “groundbreaking greenwashing complaint” into the lap of the SEC’s Climate and ESG Task Force. Their mission? To beg the question: Is Shell’s so-called investment in renewables as genuine as a three-dollar bill?

Global Witness dares to suggest that Shell might be pulling a fast one on its investors by inflating its green credentials. You see, Shell has this fancy-sounding “Renewables and Energy Solutions” (RES) segment that includes, among other things, their forays into hydrogen, nature, and whatever “integrated power activities” are supposed to be. Sounds impressive, right? Well, hold your carbon offsets, because Global Witness is calling BS.

According to these party poopers, Shell’s RES segment is about as “renewable” as a coal mine. They claim a “significant portion” of Shell’s spending on RES is actually funnelled into marketing and trading “natural gas” and gas-generated power. And here’s the kicker: they argue that gas, contrary to Shell’s insinuations, is neither renewable nor a solution to our energy woes. I mean, who knew?

Global Witness, in their quest to spoil the fossil fuel fiesta, points out two possible no-nos in Shell’s RES antics. First off, lumping renewable and gas-related activities together might not jive with International Financial Reporting Standards. Who would’ve thought that accounting standards require clarity and honesty? Secondly, they argue that Shell’s RES disclosures are as clear as mud, potentially misleading investors about the company’s march towards renewable energy. Apparently, while Shell boasted a 12% capital expenditure on RES in 2021, only a measly 1.5% was actually spent on things that won’t fry the planet, like wind and solar.

Global Witness’s complaint suggests Shell’s RES segment is like putting lipstick on a pig, making it seem like they’re cutting back on fossil fuels when in reality, they’re doubling down on gas. They fear this could “obscure” the “large and growing role that gas plays in Shell’s portfolio.”

But fear not, Shell has come out swinging, stating they are “confident” their financial disclosures could pass a polygraph test. They insist they’re “fully compliant with all SEC and other reporting requirements,” which is corporate for “move along, nothing to see here.”

So, as Shell wraps itself in the green flag, one has to wonder: is their version of renewable energy just a gas, gas, gas? Stay tuned as this eco-drama unfolds, and remember, in the world of big oil, it’s not easy being green—especially when green looks suspiciously like the same old black gold.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Shell Caught in a Green Masquerade, Claims “We’re Totally Eco-Friendly, Trust Us!” was first posted on February 16, 2024 at 12:31 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

Posted by John Donovan: 15 Feb 24

Gather round, folks, for a tale of woe and intrigue, starring none other than Shell, the planet’s darling polluter and profiteer extraordinaire. In a shocking twist no one saw coming (cue eye roll), Shell might just bail on Norway’s grand plan for its first commercial offshore wind farm. Why? Because, in a plot twist as predictable as a soap opera, the numbers just don’t dazzle them.

Here’s the skinny: Shell, alongside a dynamic duo of local Norwegian utility sidekicks, fancied themselves green warriors by eyeing up the Soerlige Nordsjoe II spot in the bracing North Sea. They dreamt of erecting Norway’s pioneering bottom-fixed offshore wind farm. But alas, Marianne Olsnes, Shell’s Norway country manager and apparent bearer of bad news, dropped a bombshell at an Oslo energy conference. The business case was, in her words, “not looking great.”

“We might not bid,” Olsnes declared, tossing uncertainty into the wind like confetti. The crowd gasped (or maybe they didn’t, but let’s dramatize). Despite the allure of the tender, with its siren song of 1.5 gigawatts of wind power glory and a subsidy treasure chest of 23 billion Norwegian crowns ($2.17 billion), Shell is playing hard to get.

Why the cold feet, you ask? Well, the tender conditions were “very challenging,” Olsnes whispered to Reuters, as if revealing a state secret. Picture this: energy companies, like some kind of wind farm MacGyvers, were expected to develop bits usually left to grid operators. And, horror of horrors, the power was to be sold to a market as enthusiastic about high-cost electricity as cats are about baths.

“But of course, we are not done with the pre-qualification, so we don’t even know whether we are still in the game,” Olsnes added, keeping us all on the edge of our seats. The suspense is unbearable.

Despite the global offshore wind industry wrestling with the Herculean challenges of inflation, interest rate hikes, and supply chain shenanigans, Olsnes hinted Shell might still flirt with a planned floating wind tender or future auctions. Because, as we all know, Shell loves to keep us guessing.

So, as this saga unfolds, let’s pop the popcorn and watch as Shell, that ever-thrifty, environment-loving corporate giant, decides whether saving the planet is worth their dime and time. Will they? Won’t they? Stay tuned for the next episode of “As the Wind Turbine Turns.”

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Shell Ponders Ditching Norway’s Wind Farm Fiesta: Too Pricey, Too Tricky, Too Shell was first posted on February 15, 2024 at 11:05 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

Posted by John Donovan; 14 Feb 24

In an epic tale of corporate vs. nature, Shell and ExxonMobil, the dynamic duo of fossil fuel festivities, have decided it’s time to drag the Dutch government to arbitration court. Why, you ask? Well, they’re a tad miffed that the Netherlands dared to halt their gas-guzzling shindig at the Groningen field, a once merry-go-round of gas supply that fueled Europe’s energy binges for decades.

Let’s set the scene: Groningen, a field so bountiful that Mother Nature herself might blush, has been the life of the party since the swinging ’60s. But as with all good things, the Dutch government, in a move as buzz-killing as it was seismic, decided in 2018 that the earth-shaking consequences of gas extraction were a party foul too severe. By last year, they called last rounds, decreeing that wells be shut down faster than you can say “earthquake.”

Shell and Exxon, under the guise of their party planning committee NAM, weren’t exactly thrilled. Despite having RSVP’d to the government’s decision with two headline agreements in 2018 and 2019, the devil, as they say, was in the details. Disagreements over the fine print have led to a frosty silence more chilling than a Dutch winter, prompting the companies to seek arbitration as the ultimate party mediator.

“Parties have disagreed over the interpretation of the agreements for a long time and many discussions with the government have not led to a solution,” lamented the companies in a joint statement, echoing the despair of unrequited party planners everywhere. They hope arbitration will be the disco ball that lights the way to clarity and mutual understanding.

On the flip side, the Dutch government, playing the role of the responsible adult, insists that turning down the gas was all in the name of safety, shrugging off the idea of compensation like a bad dance move. They’ve been trying to renegotiate the terms of this energy hoedown since 2020 and are curious to see how this legal rave will affect the vibe.

It’s worth noting that this gas gala has been quite the cash cow, with profits estimated at a cool 363 billion euros filling the Dutch treasury’s party fund since the ’60s, while Shell and Exxon pocketed around 66 billion euros to keep their own festivities going.

So, as Shell and Exxon take their party dispute to arbitration, the saga serves as a reminder that even the wildest shindigs must come to an end, especially when Mother Earth is the one footing the bill. Will the Dutch government manage to keep the peace and ensure safety, or will Shell and Exxon’s legal moves keep the party going? Only time will tell, but one thing’s for sure: this legal dance-off is set to be more gripping than the latest reality TV drama

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Shell and Exxon Take Dutch Government to Court Over Gas Field Party Pooper was first posted on February 14, 2024 at 10:46 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

Posted by John Donovan: 14 Feb 24

In a jaw-dropping display of financial gymnastics, Shell, the beloved titan of environmental stewardship (wink, wink), has officially admitted to dropping a cool $14 billion on their Beaver County ethane cracker plant. That’s right, folks—more than double their initial fairy tale estimate of $6 billion. It seems someone at Shell’s been playing a little too fast and loose with the abacus.

Shell CEO Wael Sawan, possibly while polishing his crystal ball, shared this financial marvel during a recent earnings call. Sawan, who stepped into the CEO spotlight last year, presumably without a magician’s hat, stated, “The fundamental is making sure that the $14 billion so or so of capital employed in Shell Polymers Monaca are generating the return.” Ah, the sweet sound of optimism or delusion? You decide.

As if the plot couldn’t thicken any further, Sawan confessed that the plant, which started its comedic opera of mechanical mishaps from day one, won’t be belting out its full earnings aria until the 2025-26 season. But wait, there’s more! Out of the three polyethylene trains meant to serenade us with plastics, one decided to go off the rails due to “equipment issues,” delaying the grand finale of plastic production.

Fear not, for Sawan assures us, “I’m pleased to report that piece of equipment now has been installed, a compressor that we needed to put into place is in the process of being started up and will ramp up through the course of the coming weeks.” Ah, the suspense is palpable! Can you feel it? It’s like waiting for a delayed train that promises to arrive “soon.”

Shell’s grand vision of turning a tidy $1 billion to $1.5 billion in EBITDA from this polyethylene-producing extravaganza once it’s up and running might sound like music to shareholders’ ears. But given the orchestra of blunders so far, one might wonder if it’s more akin to a cacophony of cash burning.

In a moment of rare introspection—or perhaps after a stern talking-to by their accountants—Shell’s leadership, when prodded about diving into another financial black hole like this project, murmured something about being “very clear where every single dollar of capital is going to be prioritized.” Translation: Maybe, just maybe, we’ll think twice before embarking on another megaproject misadventure.

Nestled along the scenic Ohio River, the petrochemical complex (a term as charming as “toxic waste dump”) was lured into existence with one of the largest tax incentives in Pennsylvania’s history—$1.7 billion of taxpayer generosity. All this for the noble cause of producing up to 1.6 million tons of polyethylene yearly. Because, as we all know, the world was desperately lacking in flexible food packaging, sports equipment, toys, crates, shampoo bottles, and milk cartons.

So, as Shell marches proudly forward with its $14 billion monument to overbudget projects, one can’t help but marvel at the spectacle. It’s a tale of ambition, comedy, and perhaps a dash of hubris, served up with a side of plastic—lots and lots of plastic.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Shell Splurges $14 Billion on a Plant That’s Practically a Comedy of Errors was first posted on February 14, 2024 at 8:46 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 at it again? Oil Giant shirking responsibility by selling its assets in the Niger Delta

By Andy Rowell and James Marriott

Last month, it was widely reported that another chapter in Shell’s dirty and disastrous eighty-seven-year operations in the Niger Delta was coming to an end, with the company selling its onshore business.

It’s easy to see why Shell wants to untangle itself from its controversial past. For years, the oil giant has tried to hide from its ongoing corporate liability lawsuits. However, it looks like Shell could be up to its old tricks again: trying to avoid legal responsibilities from its devastating Nigerian operations.

Shell may hope that by offloading its oil and gas fields onto a Nigerian consortium it will make it harder to sue the corporation in American or European courts.

Ever since starting to explore for oil in the late 1930s, Shell’s operations in the country have been a vortex of constant controversy, environmental devastation, double standards, and complicity in human rights abuses — most notoriously in the murder of the Ogoni 9, including writer Ken Saro-Wiwa.

In a press statement on 16 January 2024, the company said it had “reached an agreement to sell its Nigerian onshore subsidiary, The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), to Renaissance, a consortium of five companies comprising four exploration and production companies based in Nigeria and an international energy group.”

Zoë Yujnovich, Shell’s Integrated Gas and Upstream Director, was quoted as saying that the agreement with Renaissance “marks an important milestone for Shell in Nigeria, aligning with our previously announced intent to exit onshore oil production in the Niger Delta.”

So, is this the end of the road for Shell in Nigeria, as some news outlets have reported? The simple answer is no.

Here’s why: It seems like Shell wants to sell the controversial parts of its business and keep the potentially profitable ones.

Shell says that after the sale it “will retain a role in supporting the management of SPDC JV facilities that supply a major portion of the feed gas to Nigeria LNG (NLNG), to help Nigeria achieve maximum value from NLNG. Shell will also continue producing oil in the country’s lucrative offshore sector, as well as providing gas to consumers. The company holds a 25.6% interest in NLNG, producing and exporting LNG to global markets.”

However, as ever with Shell, nothing is quite what it seems. In fact, the company will continue to be involved in onshore exploration. Renaissance comprises four Nigerian companies, ND Western, Aradel Energy, First E&P, and Waltersmith, and one Geneva-based company, Petrolin, involved in exploration, production, and oil trading.

Renaissance will be responsible for dealing with spills, theft, and sabotage. SPDC and its new owners will also reportedly be responsible for the company’s ongoing contribution to the remediation of past environmental damage.

The assets on sale are estimated to be worth $2.8 billion. Initially, Shell will receive USD $1.3 billion and then a further $1.1 billion, on completion of the sale. But here comes the rub: Shell will provide a loan of up to USD $1.2 billion to the buyers to help them buy their stake in SPDC.

Furthermore, “Shell is providing additional financing of up to US$1.3bln over future years to fund SPDC’s share of the development of the SPDC JV’s gas resources to supply feed gas to NLNG, and its share of specific decommissioning and restoration costs.”

However, the new owners are not short of money. For example, Petrolin owns a minority stake in Seplat Energy, Nigeria’s largest listed energy group and the ninth most valuable company on the Nigerian Stock Exchange, worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

If someone lends you the money to buy a house, then that lender is as much of an owner of the house as you are, until you pay off the loan. So it is with Shell’s arrangement with Renaissance. Shell may well carry on investing in SPDC’s gas business and putting some money aside for “decommissioning and restoration.” Perhaps this arrangement will last for years, or decades?

So there has been a sale publicly, but privately, Shell still effectively owns part of the business. It is then investing in the business, too. However, the realities of these matters will be further and further away from public scrutiny. Worse still, it’s likely the terms of the $1.2 bn loan from Shell to Renaissance will be hidden behind a smoke screen of “commercial confidentiality.”

It is not hard to see why Shell would want you to think its days onshore in Nigeria are done. In the nineties, as civil society and community opposition to the company grew, Shell always tried to distance itself from its Nigerian subsidiary, saying it was a small problem with a local subsidiary in Africa and not one rooted back where the hierarchy operated in London or the Hague.

But the evidence painted a different picture. Nigerian experts felt that Shell responded to the community protests, not with sincerity but with a mindset driven by a public relations department intent on “damage limitation.” Much of the public relations response was driven from the head office in London, not by company staff in Lagos or Port Harcourt.

Faced with such corporate arrogance and indifference, the communities have sought justice for decades, trying to hold Shell to account. Back in 2009, Shell agreed to settle “Wiwa Versus Shell,” paying a total of $15.5 million to the plaintiffs, who had sued over the oil giant’s complicity in the murder of the Ogoni 9. Although this was a significant amount of money to the plaintiffs, for the company, the payout was small change, and it walked away without admitting liability.

Other court cases have been brought against Shell. 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.

Before settling, Shell made repeated attempts to get the case thrown out, in part arguing that US courts did not have jurisdiction – using its complicated corporate structure as a way of trying to avoid liability.

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. In a significant initial legal victory, the court did accept legal jurisdiction against the Shell parent company, based in the Netherlands.

At a hearing, witness after witness told the Dutch court Shell had bribed them to frame the Ogoni 9, including Ken Saro-Wiwa. Shell, of course, strenuously denied the allegations. Mark Dummett, Amnesty International’s Head of Business and Human Rights, was there:

 

 

In 2022, in a soul-destroying verdict for Esther and the other widows, the court eventually sided with Shell. Part of the reason for the court’s decision seems to be that the court ruled that the claimants could not prove “conclusively to Shell involvement.”

It is hard enough to get Big Oil in court. It is even harder when Big Oil delays proceedings for years, so memories begin to fade. Finally, it appears it is even harder to have the level of proof that the court was requiring. For it seems it was demanding a criminal level of proof in what was a civil case.

A year earlier, in May 2021, the District Court of the Hague held Shell liable for causing dangerous climate change. As a result of legal action brought by Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie) together with 17,000 co-plaintiffs and six other organizations, the court ruled that Shell must reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% within ten years.

It was seen as a historic verdict with huge ramifications for Shell and other big international polluters. The judgment surely reverberated all the way back to the company’s boardroom in the Hague. But companies like Renaissance, based in Nigeria, will be immune from Dutch prosecution.

The judgment meant that its Nigerian operations, so long a headache for the company, now could affect the whole Group’s bottom line. Something had to give. After this case, Shell sped up the process of trying to offload the entirety of its onshore production assets.

Meanwhile, the legal cases kept coming. In January 2023, Shell paid 15 million euros to communities in Nigeria affected by multiple oil leaks. Once again, it had been a long fight for justice, with four farmers suing Shell in 2008. And once again, Shell walked away having settled – without actually paying liability.

Shell is also subject to lawsuits in the UK. In 2014, Shell settled a case for £55 million against 15,600 claimants from Bodo, after a massive oil spill there. In November last year, the high court in London ruled that 13,000 farmers, fishermen, and women could bring human rights claims against Shell, including over chronic oil pollution of their water sources and destruction of their way of life

Matthew Renshaw, the communities’ lawyer from law firm Leigh Day, said: “This ruling is a significant moment in the eight-year battle by the Ogale and Bille communities to get Shell to take responsibility for the oil pollution that has blighted their land.” He added, “During this time, Shell has repeatedly resorted to using technicalities to block and delay our clients’ claims.”

Since the sale was announced, Leigh Day has issued a statement saying that “While details of the proposed sale and its implications for SPDC’s future are unclear,” their “clients are concerned about how the proposed sale could affect their claims.”

Furthermore, the plaintiffs are “worried that the sale could affect SPDC’s ability or willingness to fulfill the terms of any judgment which may be made against it, including in relation to orders to clean up and remediate the polluted areas.”

The law firm is also aware of “many other Niger Delta communities suffering as a result of oil spills from Shell’s operations who will be concerned about how the sale of SPDC will affect them.”

The law firm added that “it would be unconscionable for Shell to pack up its onshore operations in Nigeria without cleaning up its mess and paying compensation …. We consider that Shell, having made billions of pounds over decades from extracting oil resources from Nigeria, should fulfill its legal responsibilities and not leave behind an environmental catastrophe as it seeks to exit the Niger Delta.”

This month’s sale seems another technicality by Shell to try and avoid legal liability. The corporation’s onshore Nigerian business is still profitable. It is worth remembering that instead of spending decades fighting those who wanted justice for the Ogoni 9 and decades fighting pollution cases, the oil giant could have admitted liability. It could have prevented so much heartache and anguish. But it chose profits over people, arrogance over reconciliation.

The timing is also coincidental, according to Shell-watchers in Nigeria. After a recent ruling by the President, Shell and its partner ENI are now set to exploit the controversial but lucrative offshore oil block, OPL 245, which has been subject to corruption allegations for over a decade. Nigerian activists have concerns that this is a predatory deal that will not benefit the country.

Other critics of Shell also reacted angrily to the news of the reported sale, with civil society in Nigeria calling on the government to stop the sale until Shell cleans up its mess.

Nnimmo Bassey, Executive Director of Nigerian advocacy group Health of Mother Earth Foundation, said: “Shell must own up to its responsibility. This means full payment for the remediation and restoration of the polluted areas as well as reparations to the host communities. They cannot walk away from the virtually irreparable harm they have caused.”

Long-term climate activist Cindy Baxter, who has campaigned against the oil industry for decades, added: “Nearly 30 years after Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others were hung for protesting Shell’s pollution, the Ogoni people are still fighting it in the courts. Before this corporation leaves the country, it must clean up – and pay for its environmental crimes.”

So, the mirage that Shell wants you to believe, is that it is no longer connected to its controversial Nigerian subsidiary. That is false. As long as Shell’s loans to the business’s new owner Renaissance exist, a direct line of liability remains there for years. It’s hidden, but it’s there. Lawyers in London and the Hague should take note. Because there is still a long way to go for the communities in Nigeria to finally achieve the justice they deserve.

Andy Rowell and James Marriott – together with Lorne Stockman – are co-authors of ‘The Next Gulf – London, Washington & the oil conflict in Nigeria’. See also ‘Crude Britannia – how oil shaped a nation’ by Marriott & Macalister.

See original article published by OILCHANGE INTERNATIONAL 12 FEB 2024

Shell at it again? Oil Giant shirking responsibility by selling its assets in the Niger Delta was first posted on February 14, 2024 at 8:21 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

… the oil giant has opted for a dramatic exit, leaving Iraq’s dreams of petrochemical prosperity in the dust.

Posted by John Donovan: 14 Feb 24

Oh boy, Shell has done it again! After nearly a decade of dangling the carrot of investment in front of Iraq’s eager face, Shell has decided to pack its bags and leave the table, abandoning plans to build a mega petrochemicals plant in Basra. Just when you thought the plot couldn’t thicken any more, the oil giant has opted for a dramatic exit, leaving Iraq’s dreams of petrochemical prosperity in the dust.

“After an in-depth evaluation on the feasibility of the Nebras integrated petrochemicals complex with our government partners, Shell has decided not to proceed with the project,” Shell announced, sounding almost as if they had just decided to skip dessert. They cited reasons like “performance, discipline and simplification,” and the “high-grading of our chemicals portfolio.” Ah, the sweet sound of corporate speak meaning, “We’ve had a better offer,” or perhaps, “It’s not you, it’s me.”

The Iraqi ministry, still hopeful, confirmed Shell’s adieu but clung to the silver lining that the UK-based company would continue to support the project through its involvement in the Basra Gas Company (BGC).

Launched with fanfare and dreams of grandeur nearly a decade ago, the Nebras project was supposed to be the jewel in Iraq’s petrochemical crown. Initial agreements were signed, studies were conducted, and everyone was ready to roll. But like a soap opera, the project faced more stalls than a public bathroom, with Shell continually “evaluating” the scheme while Iraq waited by the phone for a call that never came.

Originally estimated to cost a cool $11 billion before someone found a calculator and revised it down to $8 billion, the project was a beacon of hope for Iraq’s under-developed petrochemicals industry. It promised thousands of jobs and a new revenue stream to a country that had once been a pioneer in the regional industry. But alas, sanctions, wars, and a general lack of investment left Iraq’s petrochemical dreams just that—dreams.

Shell, holding a 49% stake in the venture, seemed ready to transform Iraq’s industry. Ethane feedstock was to come from the BGC, a joint venture that sounded like a match made in heaven, processing gas produced at local oil fields. But like many a romantic comedy, the ending wasn’t what was expected.

As Shell bows out, citing a shift towards simplification over the complex web of investment and development, Iraq is left to ponder what could have been.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Shell Ditches Decade-Long Iraqi Dream was first posted on February 14, 2024 at 7:58 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

Posted by John Donovan: 14 Feb 24

Oh, buckle up, earthlings, for a rollercoaster ride into the gas-laden utopia of 2040, brought to you by none other than Shell, the fossil fuel aficionado with a heart of… well, gas. In an earth-shattering revelation that’s sure to make your carbon footprints quiver in excitement, Shell has gazed into their crystal ball (probably powered by LNG, because why not) and declared that the world’s thirst for liquefied natural gas (LNG) is about to skyrocket by more than a whopping 50% by 2040. Why? Because apparently, switching from coal to gas is the new black, especially in China and those trendy South Asian and Southeast Asian countries hungry for economic growth.

In their latest attempt to paint the town green (with LNG, of course), Shell’s “LNG Outlook 2024” spills the beans on this gaseous future. They’ve crunched the numbers, probably in a room lit by the soft glow of burning LNG, to conclude that the global LNG trade will swell up to around 625-685 million tonnes per year, up from a mere 404 million tonnes in 2023.

Steve Hill, Shell’s own executive vice president for Energy (and possibly a wizard in predicting the future of gas), waxes poetic about China’s role in this gas-fueled saga. He says, “China is likely to dominate LNG demand growth this decade as its industry seeks to cut carbon emissions by switching from coal to gas.” That’s right, folks. The country whose coal-based steel sector belches out more emissions than the UK, Germany, and Turkey combined is now on a diet, and gas is its lettuce.

But wait, there’s more! Shell, wearing its bullish cap, foresees this gassy demand reaching heights of 625-685 million tons a year by 2040, a slight backtrack from their previous dreams of over 700 million tons. It seems even in their green-tinted vision, there’s room for a little reality check.

And let’s not forget Europe, the continent still nursing a hangover from its Russian gas binge. Despite a dip in demand, Shell assures us that Europe will still need a hefty 70 million tons per year of spot LNG supply by 2025. Because, you know, old habits die hard.

So there you have it, a peek into a future where LNG reigns supreme, coal gets the cold shoulder, and Shell sits on its throne, overseeing a world gassed up on its predictions. In this gas-tastic future, Shell’s not just blowing smoke; they’re blowing LNG. And they want us all to inhale deeply. Cheers to that, or as they say in the gas world, “Burn baby, burn!”

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Shell’s Crystal Ball Predicts a Gas-tastic Future was first posted on February 14, 2024 at 6:55 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

Posted by John Donovan: 12 Feb 24

Oh, what’s this? Shell, the ever-so-loving caretaker of our fragile planet, has decided to throw a wrench into California’s green dreams by pulling out of the hydrogen fuel game for passenger cars. Surprise, surprise! In a move that screams “We’re here for a good time, not a long time,” Shell has officially declared, “Hydrogen cars? Not our jam anymore,” in sunny California, the only place in the U.S. where driving a hydrogen car doesn’t feel like a treasure hunt.

Andrew Beard, the big shot VP of Shell Hydrogen, dropped the bombshell in a note to customers, basically saying Equilon Enterprises is ditching its “hydrogen light duty passenger fueling stations” because of “supply complications and other external market factors.” Read: “It’s just too hard, and we can’t be bothered.”

They’re also slamming the door shut on seven hydrogen stations, mostly around the San Francisco Bay Area, effectively yanking away 12% of the hydrogen sipping spots in the state. Remember those 48 new stations they promised with much hoopla, backed by a cool $40.6 million in government grants? Yeah, they canned that too.

Let’s take a moment to reminisce about 2005, when Shell, with all the pomp and circumstance, opened its first U.S. hydrogen station.

Sure, Shell ditching the hydrogen car scene isn’t exactly the apocalypse for the market. Still, it’s pretty darn close for anyone who thought hydrogen fuel cell cars were about to become the next big thing in California. Spoiler: They’re not. Reports of hydrogen fuel stations running on fumes, sporting lovely “out of fuel” signs, and making drivers play the waiting game have been the norm. And with stations mostly clinging to life around LA and San Francisco, the rest of the state might as well be a hydrogen desert.

The kicker? After nearly two decades of this hydrogen hustle, California’s streets are graced by less than 18,000 of these futuristic rides. That’s in a state with over 14 million registered vehicles. Talk about a drop in the ocean.

In the meantime, Shell has been quietly backing away from the low carbon spotlight, slashing jobs, and merging positions within its hydrogen light mobility unit. They assure us they’re still all-in on hydrogen for heavy trucks, though. Because, you know, priorities.

So, as Shell waves goodbye to hydrogen passenger cars in California, one can’t help but wonder: if a giant like Shell can’t make it work, what will the future look like for hydrogen cars? Hint: It’s not looking great. But hey, at least we’ll always have the memories of what could have been, right? Shell, doing its part for the planet, one backpedal at a time.

DISCLAIMER: Content published on this non-commercial advert-free platform may incorporate information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means, including translation and information published on Wikipedia. The articles presented may be satirical adaptations derived from one or more previously published sources, crafted to maintain factual accuracy while incorporating elements of satire. Individuals or entities mentioned in our articles are encouraged to notify us of any inaccuracies that may require rectification. Readers are advised to verify all information for accuracy and completeness independently. Shell Bids Adieu to California’s Hydrogen Dreams was first posted on February 12, 2024 at 5:13 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