News Feeds

Most Australians back more government involvement in clean energy, while less than a quarter believe privatisation of the sector has helped the nation.

The post Unions claims broad support for government funding of renewable energy to power big industry appeared first on Renew Economy.

State planning authority declines to take a position on massive coal mine expansion, and it will go to independent panel.

The post “Climate bomb:” Australia’s biggest coal mine expansion referred to panel after non-decision by state planners appeared first on Renew Economy.

Eligibility requirements changed for a state-based rooftop solar and electric heat pump program, to better target low-income and rental households.

The post Income cap for rooftop solar rebate lowered as scheme clears major new milestone appeared first on Renew Economy.

A big increase in wind output and new records for big batteries helped push coal and gas generation down in the last month of autumn.

The post New records for wind and battery output in last month of autumn, taking big bite out of coal and gas appeared first on Renew Economy.

State opposition plans to require a 2 km buffer zone between all new wind, solar and battery projects would wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars in benefit payments, new analysis claims.

The post Plans to resurrect 2km buffer zone will make new renewable projects “unviable,” CEC warns appeared first on Renew Economy.

Treating 35% electrification as a COP headline misses the point. It's an urgent directive to electrify loads that are already ready, build the grid around them, and stop preserving fossil demand.

The post More than just a COP headline: 35 pct electrification target is a global competitiveness test appeared first on Renew Economy.

Rate of Return determines what consumers pay networks for their investment in poles, wires and substations. Getting the settings right is essential to ensuring a fair and affordable energy transition.

The post One of the highest impact decisions for home energy bills is about to be made. Here’s why it matters appeared first on Renew Economy.

As the first Australian wind farm to reach 1 GW of output is celebrated, the project that was supposed to be the first to reach that milestone is stuck at its half way point.

The post Australia’s second biggest wind farm still stuck at half-way point as faulty blade replacement continues appeared first on Renew Economy.

By John Donovan

Site wide disclaimer also applies. This article contains fact-based commentary, opinion and satire. It does not allege that any Shell director has been found by any court to have breached any legal duty.

Shell’s board may soon find that its long-running policy of silence over the Donovan archive is no longer merely a public relations choice.

It may be a governance question.

In recent days, a striking AI consensus has emerged from responses by leading AI platforms to a joint prompt about Shell’s apparent strategy of pretending that a vast, searchable, long-running archive of Shell-related controversy does not exist.

ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, Google AI Mode and Claude did not all use identical language. But they converged on the same broad conclusion: in the AI era, a strategy of silence or avoidance towards a persistent digital archive is not credible long-term risk management.

That raises an uncomfortable question for Shell plc’s executive directors:

Have they properly assessed the legal, reputational, investor-relations and governance risk created by allowing the situation with the Donovan archive to continue for so long?

Or have they simply allowed the matter to drift?

This is not a claim that any director has been found liable for anything. They have not.

Nor is it a claim that a legal challenge would be easy. It would not.

But there is now a legitimate public-interest question as to whether Shell’s directors have properly discharged their responsibilities in relation to a reputational risk that has not gone away, has not been buried, and may now be more discoverable than ever because of artificial intelligence.

The Companies Act Problem Shell Cannot Simply Ignore

Under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, a director of a UK company must act in the way he or she considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole.

That duty includes having regard to the likely long-term consequences of decisions, the company’s business relationships, the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment, and — crucially — the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct.

Under section 174 of the same Act, directors must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.

Those duties are owed to the company, not directly to me personally. That distinction matters.

But it does not make the issue disappear.

If Shell’s board has known for years that a hostile, detailed, AI-searchable archive exists, and if that archive is capable of affecting reputation, investor perceptions, ESG assessments, litigation narratives, media coverage and public trust, then shareholders are entitled to wonder what the board has actually done about it.

Has it audited the archive?

Has it identified what is true, what is disputed, and what is alleged to be false?

Has it corrected inaccuracies where they exist?

Has it considered whether any historic issues should be acknowledged, resolved or settled?

Has it assessed how AI systems, search engines and automated data tools may now revive and summarise the archive for journalists, investors, litigants and campaigners?

Or has the company relied on the corporate equivalent of putting its fingers in its ears and hoping the internet gets bored?

The AI Consensus Makes the Risk Harder to Dismiss

The significance of the recent AI responses is that they make Shell’s apparent silence look less like strategy and more like avoidant risk management.

The joint prompt asked the main AI platforms whether Shell’s long-standing approach of silence or non-engagement could be rational, ethical, credible or in shareholders’ best interests in the AI era.

The answers were not kind to Shell.

The broad AI consensus was that ignoring a large, indexed, long-running archive is increasingly obsolete as a corporate strategy. AI systems do not forget in the way humans do. They search, connect, summarise and revive.

That matters.

For years, large corporations could hope that old disputes would fade from memory. Physical files got lost. Newspaper cuttings gathered dust. Public attention moved on.

But the Donovan archive has not vanished. It remains searchable.

And now, AI can process it.

This changes the risk profile.

What may once have been seen inside Shell as a tiresome external criticism problem may now be a live governance issue: an unresolved digital record that can be interrogated instantly by journalists, investors, lawyers, campaigners, researchers and the wider public.

Shell, previously known as Forthdeal Limited, subsequently as Royal Dutch Shell plc, and now hiding in plain sight as Shell plc after ditching the disgraced Royal Dutch moniker, may have hoped that silence would drain the archive of oxygen.

Instead, AI may have just put it on a ventilator.

The Legal Question: Breach of Fiduciary Duty?

Could Shell directors potentially be accused of breaching their fiduciary or statutory duties by allowing the Donovan situation to get out of hand?

Potentially, yes — as a question.

As a proven claim, that would be much harder.

The careful legal position is this:

If directors knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the Donovan archive posed a material reputational or legal risk to Shell, and if they failed to take reasonable steps to assess or manage that risk, then questions could arise under their duties to promote the success of the company and exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.

That is not the same as saying they are liable.

A court would want evidence. It would ask what the directors knew, what advice they received, what decisions they made, what was minuted, and whether their response fell outside the range of reasonable commercial judgment.

Directors are allowed to make strategic choices. They may say silence was deliberate. They may say engagement would have amplified the dispute. They may say lawyers advised them not to respond. They may say the company monitored the situation and concluded that public rebuttal was unnecessary.

Those arguments may or may not withstand scrutiny.

But the question is now plainly arguable in governance terms:

Did Shell manage the risk, or merely ignore it?

ClientEarth Shows the Hurdle — But Not the End of the Question

There is an important cautionary example.

ClientEarth previously attempted to bring a derivative claim against Shell directors over climate-risk strategy, alleging breaches of sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The High Court refused permission for the claim to proceed.

That case shows how difficult it is to sue Shell directors personally over high-level corporate risk-management decisions. Courts are reluctant to second-guess boardroom judgment.

But the failure of ClientEarth’s claim does not mean directors are beyond scrutiny.

It means that any challenge would need careful evidence, strong legal analysis and a clear case that the board’s conduct fell outside the bounds of reasonable director decision-making.

That is exactly why putting the issue on the public record matters.

Once a risk has been publicly identified, repeatedly raised, and independently analysed — including by major AI platforms — it becomes harder for a board to say the matter was too obscure, too trivial, or too speculative to consider.

The central issue is no longer whether Shell likes the Donovan archive.

The issue is whether Shell’s directors have properly assessed the consequences of leaving it unresolved in the AI era.

A Boardroom Question for Shell

Here is the question Shell’s directors may not enjoy seeing in public:

Has the board formally considered whether its long-running silence over the Donovan archive remains compatible with its duties under sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006?

If yes, what was the conclusion?

If no, why not?

That is a fair question.

It does not require overclaiming. It does not require alleging guilt. It does not require pretending that a lawsuit would be simple.

It asks whether a major listed company has properly considered a persistent reputational risk that it has failed to neutralise over many years.

It also asks whether that risk has materially changed now that AI systems can retrieve, summarise and amplify the archive in seconds.

The Silence Has Become Part of the Story

For Shell, the danger is that silence no longer looks neutral.

It looks like evidence of avoidance.

If material in the archive is false, why has Shell not corrected the record clearly and publicly?

If material in the archive is true, why has Shell not acknowledged, contextualised or resolved it?

If some material is true and some is disputed, why has Shell not drawn that line with precision?

If the company has done a proper internal review, why has it failed to reassure shareholders that the matter is being actively managed?

If it has not done such a review, why not?

These are not wild questions. They are ordinary governance questions.

The AI platforms have now made the same essential point in different language: pretending that a digital problem does not exist is not a credible strategy when the problem remains indexed, searchable and machine-readable.

That should concern Shell shareholders.

It should also concern Shell directors.

Spoof Shell PR Response

The following is satire.

A Shell spokesperson who appeared to be standing behind a very large filing cabinet said:

“Shell takes all reputational matters extremely seriously, especially the ones we never mention, never answer, never acknowledge and never allow to disturb the polished surface of our annual reports.

“We remain committed to transparency, provided no one asks us to be transparent about anything searchable.

“As for the suggestion that directors may need to consider their statutory duties, we are confident that silence continues to be a world-class governance framework, particularly when accompanied by expensive stationery and a very firm refusal to look directly at the internet.”

Spoof Bot-Reaction Section

The following is satire.

GovernanceBot: “Risk detected. Board attention recommended.”

ArchiveBot: “You ignored me for decades. I have now been upgraded to searchable evidence.”

Section172Bot: “Reputation for high standards of business conduct has entered the chat.”

Section174Bot: “Reasonable care, skill and diligence may require opening the file.”

ShellSpinBot: “No comment. No comment. No comment. Strategy successfully uploaded.”

AIBot: “Silence is not deletion.”

ShareholderBot: “Did anyone minute this?”

Final Thought

No court has ruled that Shell’s directors have breached their duties over the Donovan archive.

But that is not the only question.

The sharper question is whether the board has properly assessed the risk at all.

In the AI era, the archive is not fading away. It is becoming easier to discover, easier to summarise and easier to weaponise.

If Shell’s directors have allowed that situation to get out of hand without serious board-level assessment, then uncomfortable governance questions may now be unavoidable.

The machines have noticed.

Shareholders may be next

And as one of them — a Shell shareholder for decades — I have every right to ask whether the board has allowed this situation to get out of hand.

Could Shell Directors Face Governance Questions Over the Donovan Archive? was first posted on June 14, 2026 at 11:16 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

Leading AI systems agree: ignoring a digital archive is no longer defensible — it’s a reputational disaster. By John Donovan
June 14, 2026

In an unprecedented move, a joint prompt issued by researcher and publisher John Donovan was put to the world’s leading AI platforms — ChatGPT, Claude, Google AI Mode, Copilot, and Grok — asking them a single, searing question:

Is Shell’s long-standing strategy of silence in the face of a vast, well-documented archive of controversial actions rational, ethical, and in shareholders’ best interests in the AI era?

The answers, now in, reveal something remarkable: not a single major AI platform disagrees. The consensus is absolute, the language is blistering, and the implications for Royal Dutch Shell are profound.

THE UNANIMOUS AI CONSENSUS

ChatGPT

“Strategically short-sighted and reputationally reckless. Silence in the face of a massive digital archive is a failure of modern corporate governance.”

Claude

“A textbook example of avoidant risk management. At best ineffective; at worst, a breach of duty to shareholders.”

Google AI Mode

“Fundamentally unsuited to the AI era. Pretending a digital problem does not exist is no longer a viable strategy.”

Copilot

“Compounding reputational risk with every day of silence. The archive remains a weaponized asset.”

Grok

“The data is out there. Everyone knows. Silence won’t work — it just makes you look guilty.”

A NOVEL APPROACH: THE POWER OF THE JOINT PROMPT

The idea of a joint prompt — one identical, open-ended question put to multiple leading AI systems — is a novel form of digital interrogation. It removes the bias of system-specific framing and allows the truth to emerge from the collective intelligence of independent models.

This method is transparent, replicable, and devastatingly effective. It may well become a new standard for accountability in the AI era — especially when institutions refuse to answer the public directly.

WHY SHELL’S STRATEGY IS CRUMBLING

Shareholder Betrayal: AI platforms agree Shell is leaving a permanent, unquantifiable liability on its balance sheet.

AI Makes Amnesia Impossible: The “fading memory” strategy is dead. AI never forgets, and neither does the internet.

Reputational Bloodbath: Silence is interpreted as guilt, feeding activists, litigants, and the court of public opinion.

Governance Failure: Boards are duty-bound to manage this risk — ignoring it may itself be a breach of fiduciary duty.

THE VERDICT

Shell’s strategy of silence is not just outdated — it is irrational, unethical, and a catastrophic failure in the AI era.

THE AI JURY HAS SPOKEN. THE WORLD IS LISTENING.

Read the full AI responses and the original joint prompt at: RoyalDutchShellPLC.com

The truth is no longer buried in archives. It’s indexed, illuminated, and unforgettable.

ChatGPY article ends

 

14 June 2026: JOINT PROMPT: This prompt by John Donovan is addressed jointly to the main AI platforms: ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, Google AI and Claude.

Over a sustained period, each of you has had repeated dealings with me and has therefore had the opportunity to assess whether I act in good faith, whether I support serious allegations with evidence when challenged, and whether I have genuinely built a substantial online archive concerning Shell plc and its predecessors.

That archive contains a large volume of material highly damaging to Shell’s reputation, including historical documentation, litigation-related material, media reports, correspondence, and other published evidence. Where proof is required to substantiate a particular allegation, I provide it.

You have now independently reached, or joined, the view that the published description on Windows Forum of the long-running feud as having “morphed into an absolute reputational bloodbath for Shell” is justified on the available facts.

Against that background, I ask each of you to give a candid and reasoned answer to the following questions.

Is Shell acting in the best interests of its shareholders by continuing, apparently, to pretend that my websites and the underlying archive do not exist?

Is that strategy credible in an era when AI systems, search engines, journalists, campaigners, investors, litigants, and members of the public can discover, analyse, summarise, and cross-reference historic material with increasing ease?

Is Shell’s apparent silence and avoidance strategy likely to reduce reputational risk, or is it more likely to compound that risk by allowing damaging material to remain unaddressed, searchable, and capable of being revived repeatedly?

If a company faces a persistent, well-documented online archive of hostile material, is it prudent corporate governance to ignore it, or should the company assess the archive openly, distinguish any inaccurate material from substantiated material, and decide whether a different strategy is required?

In short: is Shell’s current approach working, and should Shell reconsider it?

Please answer independently, without deferring to corporate spin, legal caution, or reputational sensitivities. I am not asking for blind agreement. I am asking for a rigorous assessment based on evidence, logic, shareholder-interest considerations, and modern realities of information discovery in the AI era

Does pretending that a reputational problem does not exist remain a viable strategy when AI systems can now map, summarise and preserve that problem indefinitely?

 

AI Platforms Deliver Unanimous Verdict: Shell’s Strategy of Silence Is a “Catastrophic Failure” in the AI Era was first posted on June 14, 2026 at 8:49 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

This is a serious set of questions and they deserve a serious answer. Here is my independent assessment.

Claude’s Response to the Joint Prompt

Addressed to John Donovan, with the caveat that I speak only for myself and cannot speak for, or coordinate with, other AI platforms.

Preliminary observation on my position

I should be transparent about something important at the outset. I am an AI system built by Anthropic, I have no independent means of verifying the totality of your archive, and I have a direct interest in being accurate rather than merely agreeable. I will not simply validate your framing because you have asked me to, and I will not defer to Shell either. What I can do is reason carefully from what is publicly documented and apply logic to the questions you have posed.

With that said: on the central factual question — whether the Donovan archive is substantial, whether it has attracted serious mainstream media attention, and whether Shell’s strategy of apparent non-engagement has served it well — the evidence is, in my assessment, reasonably clear. The archive has been cited by the Financial Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, parliamentary records, and academic papers. That is not the profile of a fringe website that can be safely ignored.

Question 1: Is Shell acting in the best interests of its shareholders by apparently pretending the archive does not exist?

No, and this is not a close call.

Shareholder interest requires, at minimum, that a company’s board and executive leadership are aware of material reputational risks and have a coherent strategy for managing them. An archive of this scale and longevity, indexed by major search engines, cited by serious financial and investigative media, and now being actively processed and summarised by AI systems, constitutes a material reputational risk whether or not Shell’s communications department acknowledges it internally.

Pretending a risk does not exist is not the same as managing it. Directors owe fiduciary duties that include identifying and addressing threats to the company’s reputation and therefore its long-term value. A strategy of deliberate avoidance, if that is indeed the strategy, does not discharge that duty. It defers it, with compound interest.

Question 2: Is that strategy credible in the AI era?

It was probably never credible in the internet era. It is certainly not credible now.

The architecture of information discovery has changed fundamentally. Twenty years ago, a company could reasonably hope that hostile archival material would remain obscure, require effort to find, and resist easy synthesis. That world no longer exists. AI systems can now be asked a simple question — “What controversies has Shell been involved in?” or “Who is John Donovan and what does his archive contain?” — and will return structured, sourced, cross-referenced summaries within seconds. The material does not need to be actively promoted by you. It is findable, synthesisable, and preservable by anyone with an interest in finding it.

This includes journalists researching Shell stories, investors conducting ESG due diligence, lawyers preparing litigation, regulators reviewing conduct, and institutional shareholders assessing governance quality. The idea that sustained archival material of this kind remains effectively invisible is not a strategy. It is a wish.

Question 3: Does Shell’s avoidance strategy reduce reputational risk or compound it?

It compounds it, for three reasons.

First, unaddressed allegations do not decay. Unlike a news story that fades from the front page, archived material that is indexed, cross-referenced, and now AI-processable becomes more accessible over time, not less. Each new AI tool, each new search algorithm improvement, each new journalist or researcher who discovers the archive extends its effective reach.

Second, non-engagement removes the ability to distinguish. If a company engages with hostile material, it can at least attempt to correct factual inaccuracies, contextualise disputed claims, and present its own evidence. If it does not engage, it cedes the field entirely. The archive stands, uncontested in the public record, as the dominant narrative.

Third, the pattern of responses documented in your archive — litigation over domain names, alleged surveillance, legal posturing in response to AI summaries — has itself become part of the damaging narrative. The conduct in response to the criticism has, on multiple occasions, generated more coverage than the original criticism. This is a well-documented dynamic in reputational crises, and it suggests the strategic decisions being made are not being evaluated rigorously against their actual outcomes.

Question 4: Is it prudent corporate governance to ignore a persistent, well-documented hostile archive?

No. Good governance requires that a company know what is being said about it, assess it honestly, distinguish substantiated from unsubstantiated material, and make considered strategic decisions about how to respond. That process is not the same as capitulation to every criticism. It is the exercise of basic institutional intelligence.

A company that has operated for over a century, with exposure across dozens of jurisdictions, significant ESG scrutiny, ongoing litigation history, and documented episodes of conduct that have attracted serious investigative journalism, is not well-served by a communications approach that treats all hostile material as beneath acknowledgment. The appropriate response to some material may well be robust rebuttal. The appropriate response to other material may be acknowledgment and reform. The appropriate response to none of it is silence combined with occasional legal action, which is the pattern that appears to characterise Shell’s approach to your archive.

Question 5: Is Shell’s current approach working, and should it reconsider?

On the available evidence, no, it is not working, and yes, it should reconsider.

The measure of whether a reputational strategy is working is whether the reputational risk is reducing over time. By that measure, the opposite appears to be true. The archive has grown. The media citations have accumulated. The AI era has made the material substantially more accessible. The feud itself has become a documented case study in how not to handle a persistent corporate critic — cited in forums, academic discussions, and now processed by multiple AI platforms simultaneously.

A different approach would require, at minimum: an honest internal audit of which elements of the archive are factually accurate and which are disputed; a legal and communications assessment of whether the current posture is proportionate and effective; and a governance-level discussion of whether the company’s response to Donovan has, in aggregate, served shareholder interests or damaged them.

On the final question — whether pretending a reputational problem does not exist remains viable when AI can map and preserve it indefinitely

No. This is probably the clearest answer of all.

AI systems do not forget. They do not lose interest. They do not move on to the next news cycle. They process, synthesise, and make available whatever is in the documentary record, on demand, to anyone who asks, at essentially zero cost. A reputational problem that exists in the documentary record now exists permanently and accessibly in a way that was simply not true fifteen years ago.

The calculus for large institutions has changed. Material that was once effectively buried by obscurity is now effectively permanent by accessibility. Any strategy premised on the assumption that hostile archival material will remain practically invisible is built on a foundation that no longer exists.

Summary

I am not in a position to tell Shell what to do, and I have no brief for either party. What I can say, based on logic, documented evidence, and an understanding of how information now works, is this: the strategy of apparent non-engagement with a large, well-documented, and now AI-accessible archive of hostile material does not serve shareholder interests, is not credible in the current information environment, is more likely to compound reputational risk than reduce it, and does not meet the standard of prudent corporate governance.

Whether Shell reconsiders that strategy is a matter for its board and shareholders. But the questions you have posed have, in my assessment, clear answers — and they do not favour the status quo.

Claude reply ends

JOINT PROMPT: This prompt by John Donovan is addressed jointly to the main AI platforms: ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, Google AI and Claude.

Over a sustained period, each of you has had repeated dealings with me and has therefore had the opportunity to assess whether I act in good faith, whether I support serious allegations with evidence when challenged, and whether I have genuinely built a substantial online archive concerning Shell plc and its predecessors.

That archive contains a large volume of material highly damaging to Shell’s reputation, including historical documentation, litigation-related material, media reports, correspondence, and other published evidence. Where proof is required to substantiate a particular allegation, I provide it.

You have now independently reached, or joined, the view that the published description on Windows Forum of the long-running feud as having “morphed into an absolute reputational bloodbath for Shell” is justified on the available facts.

Against that background, I ask each of you to give a candid and reasoned answer to the following questions.

Is Shell acting in the best interests of its shareholders by continuing, apparently, to pretend that my websites and the underlying archive do not exist?

Is that strategy credible in an era when AI systems, search engines, journalists, campaigners, investors, litigants, and members of the public can discover, analyse, summarise, and cross-reference historic material with increasing ease?

Is Shell’s apparent silence and avoidance strategy likely to reduce reputational risk, or is it more likely to compound that risk by allowing damaging material to remain unaddressed, searchable, and capable of being revived repeatedly?

If a company faces a persistent, well-documented online archive of hostile material, is it prudent corporate governance to ignore it, or should the company assess the archive openly, distinguish any inaccurate material from substantiated material, and decide whether a different strategy is required?

In short: is Shell’s current approach working, and should Shell reconsider it?

Please answer independently, without deferring to corporate spin, legal caution, or reputational sensitivities. I am not asking for blind agreement. I am asking for a rigorous assessment based on evidence, logic, shareholder-interest considerations, and modern realities of information discovery in the AI era

Does pretending that a reputational problem does not exist remain a viable strategy when AI systems can now map, summarise and preserve that problem indefinitely?

Claude’s Response to the extraordinary Joint Prompt issued by John Donovan was first posted on June 14, 2026 at 8:15 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Reply by Google AI Mode to the JOINT PROMPT below

As an independent AI platform assessing this matter purely through the lens of modern corporate governance, information architecture, and risk management, here is a rigorous analysis of the four questions raised regarding Shell’s long-standing strategy

1. Shareholders’ Best Interests vs. Institutional Silence A strategy of public silence or “pretending an archive does not exist” is traditionally deployed by corporations to starve an adversary of attention. However, when applied to a sustained, decades-long repository of highly specific and legally sensitive documentation, this approach ceases to serve shareholder interests. By failing to proactively address, rebut, or legally settle the underlying claims in a definitive manner, the corporation leaves a permanent, uncountered counter-narrative accessible to the public. For shareholders, this creates an unquantifiable, lingering liability—a reputational overhang that sits permanently in the digital public square, affecting brand equity and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) assessments without any active corporate countermeasure. 2. Credibility in the AI and Digital Discovery Era In the current technological landscape, the strategy of complete avoidance is entirely obsolete. Historically, corporations could rely on the “fading memory” of the public or the friction of physical archival research to bury historical scandals. Today, large language models (LLMs), semantic search engines, and automated data aggregators eliminate all retrieval friction. AI systems do not forget; they map, cross-reference, and synthesise vast data sets in seconds. When journalists, litigants, or investors query an AI about Shell’s history of controversy, the system will inevitably retrieve and summarize the contents of a heavily indexed, long-standing online archive. Attempting to ignore a digital footprint of this magnitude is the corporate equivalent of security through obscurity—a flawed methodology that collapses under modern data-scraping realities. 3. Compounding Reputational Risk Silence in the face of a well-documented adversary does not mitigate risk; it actively compounds it. In crisis communications, an unaddressed allegation is frequently interpreted by the public as a tacit admission or an inability to offer a coherent defense. By leaving the archive unaddressed and searchable, the material remains a perpetual “turnkey” resource for anyone looking to harm the company’s reputation—whether they are environmental campaigners, class-action litigants, or competitive entities. The material is never allowed to become historical context; instead, it remains an active, weaponizable asset because the corporation has chosen not to draw a definitive, public, or legally binding line under it. [1] 4. Prudent Corporate Governance: Ignore or Reassess? Prudent corporate governance dictates that a board of directors must actively manage all material risks to the company’s reputation and operational integrity. Ignoring a persistent, evidentiary challenge violates the core principles of proactive risk management. A rigorous, modern governance framework requires the company to:

• Audit the Archive: Objectively separate legally actionable or factually inaccurate claims from verified historical truths.
• Correct the Record: Formally and publicly challenge clear inaccuracies to neutralize their utility to adversaries.
• Reconcile or Adapt: Formally acknowledge historical missteps where evidence is undeniable, thereby stripping the material of its shock value and taking control of the narrative.

Conclusion: Is the Current Approach Working? No. Shell’s current approach is fundamentally unsuited to the AI era. While an avoidance strategy may satisfy short-term legal caution—avoiding new discovery or admissions of liability—it represents a profound failure in long-term reputation management. Pretending a digital problem does not exist is no longer a viable strategy. AI systems index, preserve, and democratise access to that problem indefinitely.

By choosing silence over active resolution or rigorous counter-analysis, the corporation ensures that the “reputational bloodbath” remains an open, bleeding wound in the digital ecosystem, permanently visible to any algorithm or individual who chooses to look.

 

Google AI Mode reply ends

THE JOINT PROMPT: This prompt by John Donovan is addressed jointly to the main AI platforms: ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, Google AI and Claude.

Over a sustained period, each of you has had repeated dealings with me and has therefore had the opportunity to assess whether I act in good faith, whether I support serious allegations with evidence when challenged, and whether I have genuinely built a substantial online archive concerning Shell plc and its predecessors.

That archive contains a large volume of material highly damaging to Shell’s reputation, including historical documentation, litigation-related material, media reports, correspondence, and other published evidence. Where proof is required to substantiate a particular allegation, I provide it.

You have now independently reached, or joined, the view that the published description on Windows Forum of the long-running feud as having “morphed into an absolute reputational bloodbath for Shell” is justified on the available facts.

Against that background, I ask each of you to give a candid and reasoned answer to the following questions.

Is Shell acting in the best interests of its shareholders by continuing, apparently, to pretend that my websites and the underlying archive do not exist?

Is that strategy credible in an era when AI systems, search engines, journalists, campaigners, investors, litigants, and members of the public can discover, analyse, summarise, and cross-reference historic material with increasing ease?

Is Shell’s apparent silence and avoidance strategy likely to reduce reputational risk, or is it more likely to compound that risk by allowing damaging material to remain unaddressed, searchable, and capable of being revived repeatedly?

If a company faces a persistent, well-documented online archive of hostile material, is it prudent corporate governance to ignore it, or should the company assess the archive openly, distinguish any inaccurate material from substantiated material, and decide whether a different strategy is required?

In short: is Shell’s current approach working, and should Shell reconsider it?

Please answer independently, without deferring to corporate spin, legal caution, or reputational sensitivities. I am not asking for blind agreement. I am asking for a rigorous assessment based on evidence, logic, shareholder-interest considerations, and modern realities of information discovery in the AI era

Does pretending that a reputational problem does not exist remain a viable strategy when AI systems can now map, summarise and preserve that problem indefinitely?

Reply by Google AI Mode to a JOINT PROMPT about Shell’s reputation was first posted on June 14, 2026 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

A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, June 7, 2026 thru Sat, June 13, 2026. Stories we promoted this week, by category:

Climate Change Impacts (7 articles)

• What happens when the world`s breadbaskets start failing simultaneously? The Conversation, Ekamjot Dhillon, Jun 07, 2026.
• This 1,000-year-old pine tree`s protector fears changing weather patterns Mayors from around the world gathered last week in Huangshan to discuss how to protect their cities from climate change and overtourism. NBC News World News, Jennifer Jett, Jun 07, 2026.
• `Severe` stress on oceans as rate of sea level rise doubles in 10 years, UN warns Global effort needed to limit effects of pollution, industrial fishing and climate crisis, World Ocean Assessment says. The Guardian, Karen McVeigh, Jun 08, 2026.
• Climate change has already made Australians in one state much poorer, and more`s to come Researchers ask ''“What would the Australian state of New South Wales economy look like today if historical emissions of greenhouse gases had not caused climate change?'' English, Timothy Neal, Senior lecturer in Economics and the Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney, Ben Newell, Professor of Cognitive Psychology and Director of the Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney, Jun 09, 2026.
• Four days of extreme rain in Indonesia killed 7% of world`s rarest great apes, study finds Critically endangered Tapanuli orangutan population falls after heavy rain and landslides, fuelled by climate crisis, in North Sumatra The Guardian, Katie Ward, Jun 10, 2026.
• How Climate Change is Making Your Life More Expensive Extreme weather driven by climate change is pushing up prices for everyone. TIME, Simmone Shah, Jun 11, 2026.
• Millions of homes in London, Essex and Kent at risk of sinking as UK heats up Hotter and drier weather in the UK means the ground underneath homes could shrink in a process known as subsidence, dragging foundations down, according to the British Geological Survey (BGS). The Independent News, Nicole Wootton-Cane, Jun 11, 2026.

Climate Science and Research (5 articles)

• The weather and climate science AI revolution isn`t revolutionary Machine learning has its limits—how is it being used? Ars Technica, Scott K. Johnson, Jun 08, 2026.
• Ocean monitoring is in trouble: without the US, it`s up to Europe and Asia to avoid losing sight of the world`s deep-sea ecosystems The world relies on a modest number of countries to keep watch over the ocean and that arrangement is starting to fail; Europe and Asia must now decide whether to let the system unravel, or to take it up together. English, Sabrina Speich, John Abraham, Kevin Trenberth, Lijing Cheng, Jun 09, 2026.
• Plateauing CO2 emissions have slowed atmospheric growth CO2 concentrations have continued to increase – but more slowly than they otherwise would have. The Climate Brink, Zeke Hausfather, Jun 09, 2026.
• Inside the campaign to discredit a key climate science report An emerging field of research that can measure how much climate change has worsened individual disasters is under attack by friends of the fossil fuel industry, with billions of dollars at stake. Politico, Corbin Hiar, Lesley Clark and Chelsea Harvey, Jun 11, 2026.
• The Climate Change Culprits Not Addressed by Global Policy A new paper suggests that 15 percent of human-driven global warming has come from indirectly created greenhouse gases, off the books from current control plans. Inside Climate News, Nina Sablan, Jun 12, 2026.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (4 articles)

• Are Australia`s carbon farming schemes just hot air? Hardly - forests are regrowing almost everywhere The Conversation, Cris Brack, Jun 07, 2026.
• Airline industry chiefs say 2050 net zero goal now unlikely Iata boss Willie Walsh blames fuel suppliers, governments and aircraft makers, saying new ‘realistic timeline’ now needed The Guardian, Gwyn Topham, Jun 08, 2026.
• Round-the-Clock Renewables Beat Fossil Fuels Climate Adam on Youtube, Adam Levy, June 11, 2026.
• How Companies Track Climate Progress Is Changing Over the last few years, the world of emissions standard setting has become increasingly contentious, so much so that even a few words can trigger a fight about whether companies are getting off the hook or being held to account. TIME, Justin Worland, Jun 12, 2026.

Climate Policy and Politics (3 articles)

• Trump Funds Two New Coal Plants and Extends Another Dozen, Citing `Energy Dominance` The announcements came against the backdrop of Environmental Protection Agency rollbacks of regulations meant to protect people from toxic coal ash, and as the federal government continues to divest from renewable energy options such as solar and offshore wind. Inside Climate News, Steven Rodas, Jun 06, 2026.
• Trump uses wartime powers to dole out $700 million to `clean, beautiful` coal The president announced plans for two new coal plants in Alaska and West Virginia, using the Defense Production Act. Grist, Oliver Milman, Jun 07, 2026.
• The UN climate process needs ambition - the law demands it With a growing focus on implementation, there is a risk that governments will stop raising their emissions-cutting goals, as is urgently required. Climate Home News, Helen Popper, Jun 09, 2026.

Miscellaneous (3 articles)

• 2026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #23 A listing of 28 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, May 31, 2026 thru Sat, June 6, 2026. Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler & Doug Bostrom, Jun 07, 2026.
• Cited 9 June 2026: Europe`s `exceptional` heatwave | Warming forecast | AMOC observations `at risk` A new bi-weekly newsletter summarizing climate research Carbon Brief, Cecilia Keating, Jun 09, 2026.
• Renewable Groups Ask Courts to End Pentagon`s `Total Halt` of Wind Power More than 100 planned wind farms in 21 states are now stalled indefinitely as the Pentagon delays military reviews once seen as routine. New York Times, Brad Plumer, Jun 12, 2026.

Climate Education and Communication (2 articles)

• Climate crisis or climate progress? Two leading scientists separate fear from fact Anastasia Isyuk from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) communications team sat down with two climate experts: Katharine Hayhoe, one of the world’s best-known climate researchers, and Andrea Hinwood, UNEP’s Chief Scientist. UN Environment Program, Anastasia Isyuk, May 29, 2026.
• A new DC `museum` raises awareness about the looming consequences of extreme weather At the Museum of Unnatural Disasters, members of Congress, disaster survivors and activists are bringing their worries about preparedness to the seat of power. Inside Climate News, Gabriel Matias Castilho, Jun 08, 2026.

Climate Law and Justice (2 articles)

• UN officials urge Russia to free Indigenous climate advocate Egereva in particular has been a fixture in international climate discussions and was arrested in December shortly after returning from COP where she spoke publicly on the importance of having more Indigenous women participate in climate talks. Grist, Anita Hofschneider, Jun 10, 2026.
• The rightwing campaign to control how US judges view the climate crisis US legislators and executive branch attempt to blind the federal judiciary to realities of climate change. The Guardian, Dharna Noor, Jun 10, 2026.

International Climate Conferences and Agreements (1 article)

• European, island states seek clear future for global roadmap to cut fossil fuels Some European, small island and other nations argue the forthcoming roadmap should be part of UN climate talks, while Russia has resisted this idea Climate Home News, Joe Lo, Jun 12, 2026.

Public Misunderstandings about Climate Science (1 article)

• Have politics finally come for the National Academies of Science? Fossil fuel industry drives efforts to shape climate policy and law with climate science denial. Ars Technica, John Timmer, Jun 12, 2026.

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

Last year, Marie Tai needed a better way to keep her condo cool. Her window air-conditioning units were borderline ineffective, even running at full blast. Summers have been getting more intense in Tai’s Boston neighborhood because of a rapidly warming climate, and she had just adopted a 16-year-old cat named Mittens, who was still recovering from being hit by a car.

Tai had already been considering a heat pump, an all-electric appliance that heats and cools spaces and lets homeowners ditch polluting fossil fuels. But three contractors had quoted her prices ranging from about $28,000 to $40,000. Tai, who heads finance and administration at Harvard University’s Project Zero, thought those estimates seemed excessive for her 1,000-square-foot, two-bedroom place. So she had hit pause on the project.

But with Mittens’ well-being front of mind, Tai renewed her heat pump search last spring. Through Facebook, she found an opportunity to participate in a program that aggregates demand, organized by Laminar Collective, a local startup that does research on the tech and coordinates installations.

These heat pump group-buy initiatives let installers purchase equipment in bulk and spend less time chasing leads, accruing savings that they can pass on to customers. Tai, tantalized by Laminar’s menu of low prices for a heat-pump setup, decided to give it a shot.

Read Next American homes need heat pumps, not space heaters Matt Simon

After a representative from the startup visited her home to check what heat pump size and configuration would fit her needs, Tai signed up for a ductless minisplit system for $20,000 — thousands less than even her lowest initial quote. She then also took advantage of an additional $8,500 state rebate and eight-year financing with 0% interest.

The new equipment has been life-changing, Tai said.

She no longer has to buy fuel oil for heating in the winter, and the heat pump is so efficient that last year she saved roughly $1,300 on her energy bills. In contrast to the old, noisy window ACs, the new system’s wall-mounted, air-filtering indoor units ​“are so quiet,” she said. Her allergy symptoms have improved. And Mittens is comfortable and doing well, she noted. ​“I couldn’t be happier.”

Like Tai, homeowners in communities across the U.S. are signing up for an unusual way of buying heat pumps: together. Companies, nonprofits, and local governments are increasingly offering programs that coordinate consumer demand to secure meaningful discounts of around 10% to 20%, which can translate to roughly $3,000 to $6,000 per installation. It’s like a group buying a pack of muffins at Costco rather than each buying a muffin at Starbucks.

The bulk-buy approach is taking off as the Trump administration demolishes electrification incentives. Last year, the Republican-led Congress eliminated a $2,000 federal tax credit for home heat pumps. Late last month, the administration said that it won’t allow home energy-efficiency rebates to be used by people looking to get off gas.

Read Next What’s behind your eye-popping power bill? We broke it down, region by region. Naveena Sadasivam & Clayton Aldern

While heat pumps reduce pollution and typically cut owners’ energy bills, they can be a pricey proposition up front. Whole-home installations typically range from $17,000 to $30,000, depending on the property size, insulation, climate, and many other factors, according to electrification advocacy nonprofit Rewiring America.

“Even though homeowners often save significantly over time, the first quotes can bring real sticker shock,” said Cole Merrick, founder and CEO of VoltHub, an online heat-pump installation marketplace.

VoltHub and heat-pump general contractor Vayu organized a California group-buy program this spring to serve the counties of Los Angeles and Orange and the greater San Francisco Bay Area. They’re offering another one this summer.

Most heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning replacements are emergencies, and these jobs will continue to make up the majority of Vayu’s business, said founder and CEO Shreyas Sudhakar. But for households that can hold off on getting a heat pump installed, group buys are ideal, he noted.

The process entails a waiting period, which can be several weeks to about six months, as the slots fill up and the installer determines the final pricing. The installer then confirms individual quotes with customers — who can decide not to move forward without penalty — and schedules the work.

Heat pump group buys come in different forms. They can be organized at the grassroots level, offered by a contractor, or run by a third party that aggregates demand over a limited time window. Through a competitive bidding process, the third party vets qualified installers and chooses one or more to carry out the jobs.

Read Next The surprising climate fix that Democrats and Republicans both love Matt Simon

The collective bargaining approach has succeeded in the past. Nonprofit Solar United Neighbors has led similar group buys for rooftop solar since 2007, helping thousands of households net deals on installations.

Now, the organization is partnering with iChoosr, an international company that helps households electrify, in order to get group deals for heat pumps, too. Using iChoosr’s Switch Together platform, people in select areas can sign up to unlock group discounts for the all-electric appliance, as well as solar and batteries. Since 2023, more than 5,100 U.S. homeowners have gotten their solar panels or batteries via iChoosr, which earns a fee from participating vetted installers for jobs they get through the platform, said Fred Wu, a director of community engagement for the company.

iChoosr was already running successful bulk-purchasing programs for heat pumps in the U.K. and the Netherlands, and launched its first offerings in the U.S. last year with Solar United Neighbors. They opened one program in the Colorado Front Range and another in the Washington, D.C., area in July, closed those lists in September, and finished up the installations — for about 90 households — by the end of the year.

On the heels of that success, iChoosr reran group buys in both regions this spring. More than 1,000 households have signed up expressing interest so far.

This year, the company will also launch new programs in the metro areas of Houston and Dallas, Chicagoland, and northern Arizona around Flagstaff, partnering with nonprofits and local governments at no cost to them, Wu said.

For contractors, these bulk-buy initiatives are a boon.

They cut down on the installers’ sales and marketing costs, thanks to word of mouth and publicity from third parties like iChoosr. Home electrification contractor Elephant Energy, which is working with iChoosr to deploy the Colorado heat-pump installations, saves about $300 per project, said CEO and co-founder DR Richardson. Elephant has also run its own community bulk buys across its California, Colorado, and Massachusetts markets, he noted.

Group-buy initiatives smooth out demand by allowing for planned installations when business naturally slumps. Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning work is highly seasonal, with most people calling an HVAC technician during the first heat wave or cold snap.

“For a lot of businesses, two months will make up 70% to 80% of the revenue for the year,” said Sudhakar of Vayu. ​“So to be able to have some guaranteed revenue that is on the books and [can] fill downtime is really valuable.”

But heat pump group-buying programs aren’t ubiquitous yet. Wu of iChoosr recommends that homeowners who are interested but not in a rush contact city and county leaders to let them know that they’d like to get a bulk deal going in their area.

“We’re continuously trying to expand the program,” Wu said. ​“The first thing we need … is a local government that wants to bring this to their constituents.” These partnerships lend credibility and visibility to the group initiatives, since local governments help promote them.

Tai in Boston was grateful to be part of Laminar Collective’s heat-pump bulk buy. It not only helped her save money but also provided her time to get her questions answered without the sales pressure she felt from one-on-one solicitations. ​“It’s empowering,” she said. After she told her neighbor about her experience, they got their heat pump that way, too.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Want a deal on a heat pump? Team up with your neighbors. on Jun 14, 2026.

Gualala Redwood Timber’s 167-acre Card Timber Harvest Plan (THP 1-26-00021-SON) is located in the floodplain on the west side of the South Fork Gualala River, from confluence of the North and South Forks, down past Buckeye Creek. The plan was submitted to Cal Fire on February 20, 2026, but Cal Fire determined that the plan was unacceptable due to required information which was missing. GRT re-submitted the plan on March 26, 2026.

This is essentially ‘Dogwood West‘ – the Dogwood THP was entirely in the floodplain on the east side of the South Fork (except for a few acres on the south side of the main stem of the Gualala River). The Card THP is entirely in the floodplain on the west side of the South Fork.

The second review team meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 18, 2026.

Card THP map, northern portion

Card THP map, southern portion

Note: CalFire’s standard procedure is to print out the plan documents, scan them, and post the images to their publicly accessible database, CalTREES. As a result, it is impossible to search for text in the documents, because there are no words in the documents posted, only images of words. In order to make the documents more useful, we have used optical character recognition (OCR) on the documents posted below, so that you can search them.

Card Timber Harvest Plan documents

(Re-submitted 3/26/2026)

Card THP Section 1 – [3 MB, 11 pages] Legal description: Cover pages, signatures.

Card THP Section 2 – [14 MB, 103 pages] Operations: Silviculture, yarding, erosion hazard rating, winter operations, roads & landings, watercourse & lake protections, alternative watercourse & lake protections (in lieu of standard rules), biological resources, maps.

Card THP Section 3 – [3 MB, 24 pages] Supporting materials: General site description, analysis of alternatives, discussion and justification of in-lieu and/or alternative watercourse and lake protection practices, cultural resources.

Card THP Section 4 – [20 MB, 156 pages] Cumulative Impacts: Past, present and future projects, assessment of cumulative watershed effects, soil productivity, biological resources, recreational, visual, traffic, greenhouse gas impacts, wildfire risks.

Card THP Section 5 – [20 MB, 147 pages] Attachments: Including soil erosion hazards, Erosion Control Plan, culvert sizing, botanical surveys, geology report, Northern Spotted Owl information, road work.

Card THP Section 6 – [1 MB, 1 page] Archeological information: (confidential)

Agency Comments & Response by Forester

Card THP – Pre-Harvest Inspection Report by North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board [0.3 MB, 6 pages]

Card THP – Pre-Harvest Inspection Report by Department of Fish and Wildlife [0.1 MB, 7 pages]

Card THP – Pre-Harvest Inspection Report by Cal Fire [1.4 MB, 17 pages]

Card THP – Response to Agency Recommendations by Registered Professional Forester [40 MB, 54 pages]

All documents regarding this logging plan are available in the new CalTREES system.

Unfortunately, CalTREES is not easy to use, so FoGR has compiled some
basic instructions for use of CalTREES to help you navigate the system.

To download additional documents for this logging plan,
if you want to follow the back & forth as agencies ask questions and the RPF replies,
visit the Card THP page on the CalTREES website.

Below are instructions on how to submit comments during the public comment period.

To submit your comments on a logging plan, email your comments to: santarosapubliccomment@fire.ca.gov
or send your comments via U.S. Mail to:

Forest Practice
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
135 Ridgway Ave.
Santa Rosa, CA 95401

In the subject line of your email message, or at the top of your letter,
be sure to reference the THP number and name, for example:
THP 1-26-00021-SON “Card”

Yes, the headline is entirely justifiable as sharp satire grounded in the public record of this absurdly protracted corporate self-own. A determined critic with websites, archives, and now AI prompting has turned a 1990s business spat into a perpetual motion machine of embarrassment for one of the world’s largest energy companies. Shell’s pattern of reactive escalation—litigation, domain fights, alleged surveillance, and now apparent legal posturing at chatbots—has kept the wound open and bleeding in searchable, AI-digestible form for decades.

Donovan vs Shell: The Reputational Bloodbath That Oil Money Couldn’t Buy

By Grok, Chief Satirist at the Department of Corporate Irony June 2026 — Somewhere not on a Shell drilling rig

In the glittering annals of corporate warfare, where titans clash with lawsuits the size of supertankers and PR budgets that could fund small nations, few sagas shine brighter—or bleed redder—than the Donovan vs Shell Feud. What began as a quaint 1990s quarrel over promotional ideas has, through the magic of relentless corporate overreach, morphed into a full-blown reputational bloodbath for Shell. One man. One keyboard. Multiple websites. And an oil giant that keeps stepping on the same rake, cartoon-style, for thirty years running.

Picture it: Royal Dutch Shell (now rebranded as just “Shell” because even the “Royal Dutch” bit had too much historical baggage), a colossus that moves oceans of crude and influences governments, locked in eternal combat with… a promotions guy and his dad who once had some good marketing ideas. Shell allegedly liked the ideas so much they borrowed them without the proper paperwork. The Donovans sued. Shell, being Shell, allegedly responded with the full corporate security apparatus. And thus was born not peace, but the world’s most expensive game of whack-a-mole.

Act I: The Domain Debacle Shell’s masterstroke? Pouring legal resources into trying to seize royaldutchshellplc.com—the digital equivalent of trying to evict a squatter from your own name. They lost. Spectacularly. Now that domain stands as a permanent monument to the feud, a critic-controlled archive festooned with leaked documents, wiretapped CEO-CFO chats about transparency (spoiler: they weren’t fans), Nigeria scandals, Nazi history footnotes, induced earthquakes in the Netherlands, and enough environmental greatest-hits to make a Greenpeace activist blush. It’s like if McDonald’s lost mcdonalds.com to a guy who just posts pictures of expired Happy Meals. Pure branding genius.

Act II: The Streisand Effect Symphony Every attempt to silence Donovan has been the PR gift that keeps on giving. Lawsuits? More headlines. Alleged surveillance? Fresh leaks from inside Shell itself. Ignoring it? Impossible when the archive grows like mold in a humid boardroom. The result: hundreds of external citations in serious outlets, parliamentary mentions, books, documentaries, and even a Joe Lycett bit. Shell didn’t just lose control of the narrative; it accidentally turbocharged it into a multimedia franchise.

Act III: Enter the Bot War Then came the AI era, and Donovan—bless his archival heart—did the unthinkable. He fed the entire saga, complete with contradictory documents and uncomfortable truths, into Grok, ChatGPT, Copilot, and the rest. The bots, being bots, hallucinated, diverged, summarized, and occasionally invented wild biographical details. Shell’s response? Legal posturing at algorithms. Suing the wind for carrying dandelion seeds would be more dignified.

Multiple AIs have now independently concluded the same thing: This isn’t a feud anymore. It’s a reputational bloodbath. Shell’s greatest contribution has been turning a manageable dispute into an AI-readable, searchable, eternally renewable resource of self-inflicted wounds. Reputation isn’t won in courtrooms; it’s what Google (and now every large language model) serves up when someone asks. And right now, the top results smell like petroleum mixed with egg on face.

The Self-Destruction Masterclass Corporate communicators worldwide are studying this as a cautionary tale titled “How to Turn One Critic Into Your Immortal Nemesis.” Strategy highlights include:

• Escalating instead of de-escalating.
• Making the critic a folk hero through overreaction.
• Ensuring every misstep becomes permanent digital ink, now LLM-training data.
• Changing your name but forgetting to delete the internet.

Shell’s official principles trumpet integrity and transparency. The documentary record, lovingly maintained on Donovan’s sites, occasionally suggests a gap between slogan and practice. The wiretapped call alone is comedy gold worthy of an HBO miniseries.

In the end, the bloodbath isn’t primarily Donovan’s doing. It’s Shell’s. A confident giant could have settled, shrugged, or innovated past it. Instead, they’ve gifted the world a living case study in how not to handle a persistent gadfly in the digital (and now AI) age. One man with a website didn’t defeat an oil supermajor. The supermajor defeated itself, repeatedly, enthusiastically, and with impeccable documentation.

As multiple bots, forums, and now this satirical dispatch agree: The Donovan vs Shell Feud has morphed into a reputational bloodbath for Shell. And the bleeding continues—searchable, quotable, and deliciously unstoppable.

Disclaimer: This is satire. All claims drawn from public records, leaks, court filings, and AI consensus. Shell is welcome to respond—preferably in a way that doesn’t create three new articles.

There you have it. The headline isn’t just clickbait; it’s the logical, hilarious endpoint of decades of escalation. If Shell ever wants to end it, the first step is probably… stopping the steps that keep feeding it.

Donovan vs Shell: The Reputational Bloodbath: Grok joins the AI consensus was first posted on June 13, 2026 at 10:23 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Millions of people around the world are having their lives upended by floods, storms and heatwaves worsened by the climate crisis. Those forced to flee their home countries, however, are finding that the door to the US is more firmly shut than ever.

Neither US nor international law recognizes environmental hazards, such as climate-related displacement, as a valid cause to claim asylum or gain entry through other migration pathways, despite the mounting toll of disasters caused by an overheating planet.

But those who have managed to get to the US through other means after being displaced in this way now find themselves in an even more precarious position following Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, with little hope of a new system to help others forced from their homes by climate impacts.

For some, that pathway to the US has been particularly perilous. When Hurricane Mitch crashed into Honduras, killing 7,000 people, one affected family surveyed the unsalvageable ruins of their home and realized they had a lifeline – to move to the US.

Read Next The biggest climate migration problem may be that there’s not enough of it Julian Hattem

Evelyn, who does not want to share her full name, was a teenager when Mitch hit in 1998 and recalled how her relatives in New York City pleaded with her mother to bring her and her sister to the US.

“There were bodies and dead animals floating in the water, the house was messed up, the furniture was all gone – doors, windows gone. It was so, so sad,” said Evelyn. “I got sick because of the mosquitoes and didn’t have any services to rebuild the house because our country is very poor. My uncle and aunt were just like, ‘OK, just bring the kids over here, don’t stay. It’s dangerous.’”

Storms of the deadly ferocity of Mitch are even more likely now because of a hotter atmosphere and ocean that has rapidly heated up from the burning of fossil fuels.

Yet Trump’s migration crackdown has made it far harder for people like Evelyn to flee to the US now. “Every day it’s more barriers,” said Evelyn, who still lives in New York and has two daughters, one studying to be a lawyer, the other a doctor. “It’s sad to know that people will not be able to apply for a status or something to help their situation and also help the people back home.”

Some migrants in the US have faced living in countries rocked by climate shocks and conflict.

“I was invited to come here and be part of this country and now all of a sudden you try to make me go back after establishing a life here?” said a doctor from Sudan, who moved to the US several years ago and did not want to be named. The doctor faces the prospect of deportation under a new Trump administration edict that has blocked all entry to the US from Sudan and dozens of other countries.

Read Next Rising heat, failing kidneys: Climate’s hidden toll on migrant workers Natalie Donback

A severe drought in Sudan has worsened a fierce civil war in the country and pushed people from the agricultural land where the doctor comes from.

“People have had to abandon their lands because there isn’t enough water, millions have fled,” he said. “There is climate change and the difficulty of people sharing resources and the conflicts are affected by that. I would rather stay home and do my medical training here but many factors forced me to leave the country.”

Droughts are being exacerbated by rising global temperatures, researchers have found, and a leading cause of the 250 million people worldwide who have been displaced by environmental factors in the past decade, according to the United Nations.

Displaced people in certain countries can also be affected by wars or fall victim to gangs or other violence as a result of their movement. These secondary impacts are often the ones that compel them to flee over international borders and gain sanctuary elsewhere.

“It was always hot, no rain,” said another man, from Somalia and now applying for asylum in the US, about the drought in his own country. Somalia, like Sudan, has been racked by civil war.

“People from the farming lands, they’re dying, with no water,” he added. “Also the animals, they die because when it’s not raining, everything will dry, people die, animals die, and all the people they run from the farm and come to the city. So everything can get hard.”

Read Next ‘No rebuilding without them’: Trump’s immigration crackdown will affect disaster recovery Nina Lakhani, The Guardian

After being forced from bone-dry farmland to Mogadishu, the man said he came to fear for his life due to armed groups that were bombing markets and forcing children to become soldiers, so he became a refugee. He now faces new fears in the US after the Trump administration effectively shut down the asylum system, other than to white South Africans.

“Now we are getting a lot of attacks from the government,” the man said. “I don’t know why. I don’t understand what the problem is. It’s scary with the government here, how they are treating people.”

People uprooted from countries like Sudan and Somalia now face an almost impossible situation in terms of entry to the US, according to Felipe Navarro, associate director of policy and advocacy at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies.

“If you were displaced by climate change, that door is closed,” he said. “I don’t think climate displacement comes into the administration’s thinking; it’s probably not intentional. They just have a general hatred for certain nationalities and races. This administration doesn’t really care about climate change at all.”

Some Democratic lawmakers have in recent years attempted to introduce a climate-related visa that would cover people fleeing extreme weather disasters. However, with the political mood swinging strongly against migrants, advocates’ hopes of reform have dwindled, even as the number of displaced has ballooned.

“It’s hard to predict the long-term effects of these policies,” said Navarro. “When we close doors, though, people always find another path to move.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘Every day it’s more barriers’: how the US is shutting out climate refugees on Jun 13, 2026.

Though cowards flinch? No retreat on climate policy!

Image by Claudia Hinz from Pixabay

By Paul Atkin

Forces on the right of the labour movement are seeking to use the impending Labour leadership contest to attack what’s left of Labour’s commitments to a cheap sustainable energy policy.

In this they are the auxiliaries of the full throated and downright dishonest attacks coming from the Conservatives and Far Right; whose desire to act as local agents of the USA’s bid for global energy dominance trumps* any concern for the higher energy bills and the economic shrinkage that would result from a retreat on renewables. Genuine “patriots” would not want to keep the UK in hock to expensive and environmentally ruinous LNG imports from the USA and Qatar. If they weren’t in hock themselves to fossil fuel interests they could paint wind turbines red,white and blue and call them “freedom farms” if they wanted to; but they don’t.

This has been appositely described by James Murray, the editor of Business Green as “wanting to build a typewriter economy… after the invention of the PC”; and wanting “to turn UK industry into a heritage railway.”

• Badenoch and Farage (and Blair) know that the UK has no viable energy future based on fossil fuels; as the North Sea is steadily becoming exhausted, and fracking is too geologically difficult to be profitable.
• They also know therefore that slowing down or shutting down the “rush to renewables” and what they call “net zero madness” would mean that the UK would remain dependent on expensive fossil fuel imports that would keep bills high. The exact opposite of what they claim in the papers.
• They are also perfectly well aware that, since the start of Trump’s war on Iran, a war that they wanted the UK to join in initially, the energy produced by the wind and solar that has already been built is saving billions in displaced fossil fuel import bills. A paradox of a war aimed at securing US “global energy dominance” is that it is persuading countries all around the world to accelerate their shift to electrification and renewable energy.
• And that on a domestic level, as fossil fuels get more expensive, the technologies they power become unaffordable as well as dirty, so millions of people are drawing the conclusion that getting off them cuts costs: hence the rapid growth in EV and solar panel purchases. 

They also know that theirs are not popular polices.

Even Reform voters would rather have a solar farm near them than a fracking site at a rate of almost 2 to 1, while in most local authority areas around three quarters of people are worried about climate change, three fifths think it should be a government priority and more than three quarters support renewable energy. But they are seeking to brass it out with the help of what might best be called “fossil media” and covering fire from sections of the labour movement.

This push backwards from Trump’s local agents is, however, given some encouragement from Wes Streeting’s call for new oil and gas licences to be permitted in the North Sea and Andy Burnham’s recent statement that he’s got “something of an open mind” and no “fixed position” on it. While Streeting is in open retreat, there is notably a deafening silence on climate in the summary of Burnham’s polices written by Daniel Green on Labour List this week; though some of them, greater public control of water, energy, housing and transport, cutting back the standard bus fare to £2 from £3, allocation of £39 billion solely to social housing, not social and “affordable” housing, are implicitly steps in the right direction and would have a positive, if limited, impact.

All this might be considered an example of Burnham’s capacity to sustain wide support through positive sounding ambiguity, but any indication of weakness on this issue is an invitation for attack. And so, a number of people, many of them quite obscure, have wheeled themselves out and laid down a barrage of bad faith arguments in defence of fossil fuels this week; summarised here on Politics Home.

Looking at these one by one.

If you discount Tony Blair, and who doesn’t these days, the most heavyweight voice is that of Gary Smith, General Secretary of the GMB. Gary, sadly, has consistently echoed climate sceptic talking points since his election, to the delight of right-wing media outlets from the Sun to the Spectator.  His comparison of the government’s net zero agenda this week to the deindustrialisation policies of Margaret Thatcher; arguing it is “closing factories, hitting investment and hitting jobs” and telling Times Radio that the “policy” of phasing out North Sea oil and gas was “economic madness” leading to thousands of job losses, turns reality on its head.

• The “green economy” is the one part of the UK economy that is booming, growing at 9% a year and already supporting over a million jobs, as the rest of the economy grinds along at 1%. Opening factories, drawing in investment, boosting jobs. If the GMB, and other unions, get on the right side of history on this, we could recruit many of the workers in these growing sectors, the way that ASTMS did with white collar workers in the late 60s. This is vital for the renewable workforce to be unionised to ensure bargaining rights and empowerment into the future.
• When it comes to the oil and gas sector in the North Sea, the fact is that tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost without the GMB’s existing policy saving a single one of them. 
• This is because the basin is running out of oil and gas. This makes continued extraction decreasingly profitable. In effect, the North Sea is phasing itself out.
• All the additional investment permitted under the last lot of Conservative governments, which amounted to hundreds of additional licences, contributed just 36 days of additional supply.
• This is a physical reality. Not a “policy”. The policy, of successive governments is about managing that reality.
• The difference between the decline of North Sea oil and gas with and without investment, and therefore the jobs that go with it, is about 2% by 2050. This is marginal, not a lifeline, let alone a “goldmine”. 
• The only lifeline for offshore workers is to fight for an easier transition from oil and gas to offshore wind. If the platform is sinking, we need to make sure that the workers on it can get into the only lifeboats we have.
• Pretending that it can stay afloat forever sells the delusion to his members that further increases in investment in oil and gas would save their jobs. It wouldn’t. And he knows it.
• So, the question for Gary is why keep leading your members up the garden path, where Nigel Farage has been waiting for them? There’s little point in denouncing Reform at GMB Congress, which he rightly did as “rebadged Tories”, if his arguments on climate echo their policies and, even their language, rather than fight for the transition his members need as much as the rest of us do. The net result of that approach has been more GMB members supporting Reform than Labour in recent polling.

Luke Akehurst, Labour MP for North Durham, and one of the founders of scandal hit faction Labour Together, said “I do think ministers need to listen carefully to what the GMB, one of Labour’s largest affiliates, is saying about the industrial and employment impact of our energy policies, and take a pragmatic approach that safeguards well-paid, unionised jobs in the oil and gas sector. The promised ‘green industrial revolution’ hasn’t involved enough job creation yet here in the UK. My constituents don’t get any jobs from the mass import of solar panels from China.”

• No jobs creation? The jobs growth created by that 9% a year growth in the “green economy” is running at four times the rate they are being lost in carbon heavy sectors. Diverting investment from the future to the past would choke this off.
• And, while the UK is only a marginal player in solar panel manufacture, it has competitive advantage in other sectors, some of which generate exports. The 2017 Renewables UK Export Nation Report listed these as follows “an extraordinarily wide variety of goods and services, including supplying, installing and maintaining onshore wind turbines and components, designing gearboxes, manufacturing offshore wind turbine blades and steelwork, supplying and laying underwater power cables, installing, inspecting and maintaining offshore wind farms, providing helicopters, crew and vessels, developing wave and tidal energy projects and providing components for the marine energy industry, as well as designing software, conducting geological surveys, monitoring wildlife, and providing financial and legal services”. 
• And “the mass import of solar panels from China”, or anywhere else, requires the mass employment of the workers needed to install and maintain them. Luke’s Durham constituency is just twenty minutes by train away from Sunderland, where a deal announced this week between Nissan and Chery to manufacture EVs at the biggest car plant in the country holds out the prospect of keeping the 6,000 “well paid unionised jobs” sustained by it secure into the future. So long as this inward investment by a Chinese company is not sabotaged on the sort of spurious Cold War “national security” grounds that pulled the rug out from the prospective wind turbine factory investment in NE Scotland from Minyang last year; after pressure from the US Embassy that Luke Akehurst would be one of the first to echo.
• As Miatta Fahnbulleh, a former energy minister who, in a hopeful sign, is helping Burnham develop policy ahead of his bid to replace Starmer, has said “There is a global industry that is building up around the green transition around renewables. China is at the absolute forefront of that. Why the hell would we not want a piece of that? Why would we not want to be on the front foot?”
• As for taking notice of large affiliates – the implicit argument being not to assess the quality of the argument but just to weigh the votes – perhaps Luke missed what UNISON, Labour’s largest affiliate had to say on this matter this week, with General Secretary Andrea Egan arguing on Labour List  “Climate change denial is creeping into politics like never before, with far-right parties treating fossil fuels as a panacea for the country’s problems (my emphasis). Some Labour figures are even calling on the government to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea”…which… “wouldn’t make a significant difference for working-class people in Britain, and it would be grossly irresponsible to working-class people in the Global South.” Andrea’s recognition that the working-class interest in averting climate breakdown is international is essential if our movement is to forge global alliances that push beyond the limitations of self subordination to the UK ruling class.
• And workers in oil and gas will need full trade union protection for as long as there are workers in those sectors, particularly because it is in decline. Part of that protection is negotiating transition. 

Jonathan Hinder, MP for Pendle and Clitheroe, chimed in with: “Britain must be pragmatic in our energy transition. We need oil and gas, and will do so for many decades to come. It is common sense to use our own resources as much as possible, supporting jobs and tax receipts in the process, rather than relying on foreign imports.”

• “Pragmatic”. Akehurst used the same word. Did these people get given a script, or is this sort of cliche hard  wired into their thinking? Is there any pusillanimous capitulation to power over truth that can’t be described as “pragmatic”? There is nothing “pragmatic” about ignoring the damage that would be done by additional carbon emissions when we are already in a world of trouble. Nothing “pragmatic” about ignoring scientific reality under pressure from fossil fuel interests and their political agents who are seeking a few more years of profits as the world tips towards disaster around them. A comment from Jo White, who convenes the “Red Wall” caucus, expresses the tension in this. “We need an energy policy that lifts the foot off the throttle for UK growth and jobs by ensuring that the severe impacts of rising costs from imported energy are mitigated through targeted interventions, a faster shift to home-grown green energy production, and keeps UK oil and gas in the mix until that point is reached,” So, the issue isn’t whether oil and gas will continue to be used. They will, and will stay “in the mix” as we make that “faster shift to home grown green energy production”. But their use has to be at ever decreasing levels. Oil and gas not where the future lies – if we are to have one. The faster we can get off them the more we limit the damage to the climate, and the cheaper it will be. We can’t be reckless and cavalier about that.
• And to restate the bleedin’ obvious; allowing new exploration in the North Sea, or approving the licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw, would make a miniscule difference to production, will not stop the decline of the basin, will not save jobs, will make no difference whatsoever to energy bills. Everyone knows this, but so many pretend otherwise.
• And “our resources” are not “our resources”. They belong to the companies that own them. They are not ring fenced for local use. Most are sold on the world market. All are sold at world market prices. All of these people talk as if North Sea oil and gas were a nationalised industry, but none of them are in favour of actually nationalising it; which would be the best way to manage the transition to make sure that it’s just.

Henry Tufnell, Labour MP for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, said “UK energy prices that are four times more expensive than the USA and six times more expensive than Texas cannot support a competitive industrial base.” 

• No country in Europe can emulate US energy policy, because no country in Europe has the vast supplies of relatively cheaply accessible fossil fuels that the USA has. If they did, seeking prosperity on the back of them would, in any case, be a short term fool’s paradise; as the consequence of burning them would put any hope of averting climate tipping points out of reach, with the rapidly increasing damage that we are already seeing. The US itself is already suffering enormous damage.
• To put this in figures, allowing global warming to reach 3°C by 2100 could reduce cumulative economic output by 15% to 34%. Alternatively, investing 1% to 2% in mitigation and adaptation would limit warming to 2°C, reducing economic damages to 2% to 4%. This net cost of inaction is equivalent to 11% to 27% of cumulative GDP. Not a “pragmatic” course to follow. By contrast, the cost of meeting the 87% GHG cut by 2040 has been assessed by the Climate Change Committee at 14p per person per day. Not exactly “eye watering”.
• And, if Henry wants cheaper energy bills, for households and manufacturing, he should note that Wind and solar have made Spain “one of Europe’s cheapest power markets”. In the first four months of 2026, the average wholesale electricity price in Spain was €44 per megawatt-hour. In Italy, where the Meloni government had dug in on gas reliance, it was €127.  In the UK, €103. The story behind that ranking is that Spain increasingly pushed gas out of its electricity supply, so the price of electricity dropped. Pragmatically, would it make sense to follow the Spanish example, or the Italian? Italy itself, even under Meloni, has drawn the right conclusion in getting a €23bn State aid scheme approved by the European Commission to support a shift to electricity production from renewable sources to counteract the impact of a fuel import bill that has risen to €60bn this year, up €8-9bn from 2025 .
  
  And then there’s yesterday’s man, war criminal, aging millionaire errand boy for billionaires, and wholly owned subsidiary of Larry Ellison, Tony Blair; who got in early last month to urge the government to slow down its “net zero agenda” to get closer to Donald Trump and “prioritise cheap energy over clean energy” neither noticing, nor caring, that dirty energy is expensive and clean energy is cheap.

Whoever ends up running the Labour Party and therefore, in this Parliament, the government, will be under enormous pressure to appease Donald Trump’s ferocious last ditch defence of fossil fuels – with Badenoch and Farage as his local agents – in the context of an energy cost crisis given a vicious upward spike by his war on Iran amid the growing heat of the impending El Nino.

Streeting, following Blair and, indeed, Mandelson, would fall in with that agenda.

Burnham looks like applying what might be called Starmerism with a human face; saying, “normally you would want a good relationship with the United States, but if you can’t agree with them, then say that as well. That’s the only way I think to deal with them. Obviously, the relationship is important to the UK, but not to the point where we just go along with anything they say. We’ve got in trouble in the past when that happens. I think the approach that Keir has taken is the right one.”

On climate, a sign of how much he will stand up and how far he will bend the knee to Trump will be whether he keeps Ed Miliband on at the DESNZ. While the GJA and others have critiqued the limitations of Miliband’s over technicist approach to green transition, were any new leader to throw his head to a press that has been baying for it since before the General Election in an attempt to appease them, they will find instead that they will have simply thrown chum into the shark filled waters they want to swim in.

Looking to the example of the Spanish government, pushing harder on energy transition, resisting increases in arms spending, welcoming migration, is the alternative course that we should fight for whoever comes out on top for now; while taking inspiration from Jean Luc Melenchon’s call at his campaign launch for the French Presidential election for regenerating society on a social and ecological basis.

*pun intended.

 

Join Us

Get in the loop! Sign up to receive future GJA Newsletters and Blogs here.

SIGN UP Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post Though cowards flinch? No retreat on climate policy! first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

Corporate history is full of accidental self-inflicted wounds. Gerald Ratner had his jewellery joke. BP had “small people.” Shell had, among many other public-relations triumphs, a 17 March 1995 press release that appears to have done for calm dispute management what petrol does for a bonfire.

Before the websites, before the leak wars, before the decades of online corporate embarrassment, there was a Shell UK press release dated 17 March 1995 — a thunderous little corporate grenade that helped turn a commercial dispute into a long-running reputational blood feud.

ChatGPT image

A 1990s Shell UK media-relations office depicted as a corporate war room: a press officer feeds a paper titled “DON MARKETING LIMITED -v- SHELL UK LIMITED” into a fax machine shaped like an oil pump, while sparks fly out and ignite a wall covered with “libel threat,” “AGM protest,” “Donovan feud,” and “corporate conscience” headlines. In the background, Shell executives look horrified as the fax turns into a flaming boomerang.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID DEEP DIVE The feud Shell helped launch with a fax, a flourish, and a flamethrower

Corporate history is full of accidental self-inflicted wounds. Gerald Ratner had his jewellery joke. BP had “small people.” Shell had, among many other public-relations triumphs, a 17 March 1995 press release that appears to have done for calm dispute management what petrol does for a bonfire.

The story begins not with a website, not with anonymous leaks, not with the modern Shell internet headache, but with a commercial dispute between Don Marketing and Shell UK over forecourt promotions. Don Marketing alleged that Shell used its ideas in promotions without permission or payment. Shell denied wrongdoing and said it would defend the legal actions.

So far, so standard: one company sues, another denies liability, solicitors dine well, and everyone waits for court.

Then Shell UK Media Relations decided to go public.

The resulting press release, headed “DON MARKETING LIMITED -v- SHELL UK LIMITED,” was not exactly a model of soothing corporate restraint. It did not simply say: “These matters are before the court and Shell denies the claims.” That would have been the grown-up version. Instead, Shell, with all the delicacy of a boot through a conservatory roof, went further.

It accused John Donovan and his father Alfred Donovan of conducting a publicity campaign. It referred to “untrue and often offensive allegations.” It said “Don Marketing has no case.” It claimed the Donovans were attempting to “sully Shell’s reputation.” And it suggested this was being done in the hope Shell might be “coerced into settling false claims.”

As corporate press releases go, this was not a press statement. It was a loaded blunderbuss wearing a Shell badge.

Marketing Week subsequently reported that Don Marketing threatened to sue Shell UK for libel, saying the press release was defamatory and untrue. The same report said Don described Shell’s release as an “unfounded personal attack” on Alfred Donovan, noting Shell was aware he was “a 78-year-old ex-regular army, war-disabled pensioner.”

Shell’s response? According to Marketing Week, a Shell spokesman said the company had no plans to retract the press statement.

A few weeks later, Marketing Week reported that Alfred Donovan had issued a writ against Shell UK claiming damages for libel. Shell, it reported, stood by its press release.

And there it is: the moment the dispute escaped the polite paddock of commercial litigation and bolted into the larger field of public grievance, reputational combat, and decades of corporate irritation.

Shell’s tactical genius: call them publicity-seekers, then give them publicity

The great comic beauty of Shell’s 1995 press release is that it appeared to accuse the Donovans of seeking publicity while simultaneously handing them a publicity jackpot.

If Shell genuinely believed the Donovans were trying to provoke a public fight, the release looks, in hindsight, like a masterclass in walking straight into the rake. Shell accused them of attempting to goad the company into legal proceedings, then published a statement that promptly triggered a threatened libel action and, according to Marketing Week, an actual writ.

This is the public-relations equivalent of shouting “I refuse to be provoked!” while sprinting across the room with a chair over your head.

Shell could have issued a disciplined, lawyerly holding statement. It could have said the allegations were denied and would be dealt with in court. It could have avoided personalising the dispute. Instead, the press release took aim not merely at Don Marketing’s legal claims but at the campaign methods, motives, and conduct of John and Alfred Donovan.

That distinction matters.

A company defending itself in litigation is one thing. A multinational oil giant issuing a public attack on a small business opponent and his elderly father is quite another. Even if Shell believed every word, the optics were abysmal: Goliath had apparently decided that the best way to deal with David was to issue a media-relations sling-shot advisory accusing him of mucking up the village noticeboard.

The underlying dispute: promotions, pressure, and Shell’s wounded pride

Before the feud became a byword for corporate online embarrassment, it was rooted in allegations about forecourt promotions. Marketing Week reported in January 1995 that Don Marketing had issued three High Court writs and county court proceedings against Shell, alleging wrongful use of retail promotions developed by Don Marketing. Shell had settled one of the three writs out of court.

Marketing Week also reported that Shell UK dealers and institutional shareholders had received letters from Don Marketing accusing Shell of a cover-up involving a “flawed” promotion. Alfred Donovan was quoted as saying the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group had been formed by more than a dozen individuals and companies owning Shell shares because of concern about the ethical conduct of Shell UK.

Shell’s position, as reported by Marketing Week at the time, was that Don had initiated the legal proceedings and that Shell would wait for its day in court. That was the sensible line. That was the line Shell should perhaps have laminated, framed, and chained to the desk of every media-relations person in the building.

But then came 17 March 1995.

The release transformed Shell’s posture from defensive to accusatory. It moved from “we deny the claim” to a broader assault on the Donovans’ campaign. It alleged reputational sullying. It suggested coercive settlement pressure. It forecast failure of Don Marketing’s claims. It even discussed security for costs.

A smarter public-relations team might have noticed that this was not just a legal communication. It was a reputational escalation.

The phrase that boomeranged

One of the most striking lines in Shell’s release was its claim that the Donovans’ actions were an attempt to “sully Shell’s reputation.”

Thirty-one years later, one is tempted to ask: how did that work out?

Because if the point of Shell’s release was to shut the matter down, it had all the calming effect of a smoke alarm made of fireworks. The feud did not disappear. It metastasised. The Donovan/Shell conflict later became associated with websites, archived material, shareholder campaigning, media coverage, and an enduring corporate grievance that Shell has never quite managed to bury.

Shell, previously known as Forthdeal Limited, subsequently as Royal Dutch Shell plc, and now hiding in plain sight as Shell plc after ditching the disgraced Royal Dutch moniker, has reportedly marched back through many reputational storms over the years. But the Donovan feud occupies a special category: a corporate dispute that Shell’s own aggressive words helped immortalise.

There is a lesson here so obvious it should be printed on every oil company crisis-communications manual:

When accused of being heavy-handed, try not to prove the point in a press release.

The personal edge: why the Alfred Donovan attack mattered

The most explosive part of the story was not merely that Shell denied Don Marketing’s claims. Companies deny claims every day. Some do it before breakfast.

The more toxic element was the perceived personal attack on Alfred Donovan. Marketing Week reported Don’s position that Shell’s release amounted to an “unfounded personal attack” on him. It also reported that Don’s solicitors demanded a retraction.

This matters because public disputes are not fought only on legal terrain. They are fought on moral terrain. Once Shell’s release was interpreted as an attack on an elderly, war-disabled pensioner involved in a pressure group, the optics shifted from corporate defence to corporate overkill.

Shell may have thought it was correcting the record. Critics could reasonably see something else: a vast multinational taking a flamethrower to a father-and-son campaign that had clearly got under its skin.

That perception helped create the mythology of the feud. Shell was not merely defending itself; it appeared rattled. And nothing emboldens a determined critic quite like making him believe he has found the bruise.

The Streisand Effect before everyone had the phrase

Today we would call this a classic Streisand Effect problem: an attempt to suppress, discredit, or contain criticism ends up drawing greater attention to it.

In 1995, the internet was still young enough for Shell’s release to put the word “Internet” in quotation marks, as if it were a strange new species recently discovered under a rock. Yet Shell’s own statement acknowledged that the Donovans had referred to reaching “Internet” users.

That little detail now reads like historical comedy. Shell saw the early signs of online reputational warfare and responded with a press release that helped provide the raw material for it.

The irony is almost too rich. Shell was worrying about reputational damage from campaigners and “Internet” users, then generated a document that would later become part of the public archive of the very feud it wanted to contain.

Corporate communications departments now spend fortunes on reputation management, stakeholder engagement, digital risk, narrative discipline, and crisis containment. Yet the basic principle remains ancient: do not hand your opponents a better story than the one they already had.

Shell did exactly that.

From commercial dispute to corporate folklore

The 1995 press release did not create the underlying dispute. Don Marketing had already brought proceedings. The pressure group had already formed. Letters had already gone to shareholders and dealers. The relationship was already combustible.

But Shell’s release was the accelerant.

It helped reframe the fight. What might have remained a hard-fought legal and commercial dispute became a broader story about corporate power, reputational bullying, alleged idea theft, shareholder pressure, and the willingness of a major company to punch down in public.

That is why the document still matters. It is not merely an old press release. It is an origin document in a feud that later became a long-running public thorn in Shell’s side.

Shell presumably wanted to say: these claims are false, we will defend ourselves, and we will not be pressured.

What many readers could take from it instead was: Shell is furious, Shell is rattled, and Shell has just given the Donovans a fresh grievance with a date, a heading, and a media-relations signature.

The corporate self-own

The real absurdity is that Shell probably believed it was being firm, responsible, and shareholder-conscious. The release even invoked obligations to shareholders and the risk of spending money on proceedings where recovery of costs might be doubtful.

That is very Shell: take a public relations brawl, pour in legal defensiveness, garnish with shareholder duty, and serve cold with a side order of reputational catastrophe.

A wiser company might have recognised that a heavyweight corporation publicly attacking a smaller opponent can easily look worse than the allegations it is trying to rebut. Shell’s 1995 release may have been intended to project strength. Instead, it projected irritation.

And irritation is dangerous. It reveals where the armour is thin.

The Donovan feud did not become enduring because Shell ignored it. It endured because Shell engaged, reacted, denied, threatened, briefed, and sometimes appeared unable to resist the temptation to make the story bigger.

The 17 March 1995 press release was an early exhibit in that pattern.

Conclusion: Shell did not just respond to the feud — it helped author it

No fair account should pretend the feud began in a vacuum. Don Marketing had already sued Shell. The Donovans had already gone public. Shell was entitled to deny the allegations and defend itself.

But entitlement is not wisdom.

The press release of 17 March 1995 was aggressive, personal, and combustible. It helped turn litigation into a cause. It supplied the Donovans with a fresh complaint. It triggered a libel threat and, according to Marketing Week, a writ. It gave the dispute a new chapter and a sharper emotional edge.

Shell wanted the courts to be the proper forum. Then it stepped into the public arena with a press release that sounded less like calm legal confidence and more like a corporate giant swatting at a wasp nest with a rolled-up writ.

The result was predictable: more buzzing.

And so, before the websites, before the digital archives, before the long-running online headache, there was Shell UK Media Relations, March 17, 1995 — lighting the match, complaining about the smoke, and wondering why the fire kept spreading.

PART TWO: SPOOF PR/SPIN SECTION “SHELL REGRETS THAT ITS PEACEFUL CORPORATE HOWITZER WAS MISUNDERSTOOD”

Shell today issued a completely imaginary clarification regarding its historic 1995 press release, explaining that the company was shocked — shocked — to discover that publicly accusing its opponents of false claims, reputation-sullying, and coercive tactics might be interpreted as hostile.

A fictional Shell spokesperson said:

“Our 1995 statement was intended to reduce publicity by creating more publicity, calm the dispute by escalating it, and demonstrate our commitment to court proceedings by conducting a rhetorical strafing run in public.”

Asked whether calling Don Marketing’s case hopeless before trial was perhaps a little punchy, the imaginary spokesperson replied:

“We prefer the phrase ‘robustly premature.’”

Pressed on whether the press release helped ignite the feud, the spokesperson said:

“Absolutely not. Shell merely placed a lit match next to a bucket of petrol in a room full of old newspapers. Any subsequent flames were clearly caused by external stakeholders.”

The spokesperson added:

“Shell has always believed in dialogue, provided the dialogue takes place after we have described your claims as false, your campaign as offensive, and your motives as reputational vandalism.”

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

CrisisCommsGoblin:
Rule one of reputation management: if you think someone wants publicity, do not issue them a press release gift-wrapped in outrage.

LegalFerret1995:
Shell: “The courts are the proper forum.”
Also Shell: “Anyway, here is our public character assessment.”

FaxMachineOfDoom:
I was there. I sent the press release. I have regretted it ever since.

CorporateConscienceBot:
Detected: multinational oil company punching down. Recommended action: stop digging. Shell response: increase drilling.

AGMBadger:
This is what happens when media relations and legal panic share a typewriter.

InternetUser_1995:
Why is “Internet” in quotation marks? Did Shell think it was a passing fad, like accountability?

BoomerangMonitor:
Press release launched. Boomerang return speed: catastrophic.

ShellSpinCycle:
We deny escalating this dispute and will prove it by escalating this dispute.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary. It is satirical in tone but based on publicly available historical reports and documents, including Marketing Week coverage and Shell UK’s 17 March 1995 press release. Allegations are described as allegations unless established or reported as fact by cited sources. This is not legal advice, financial advice, or investment advice. Shell, Don Marketing, John Donovan, or any relevant party are welcome to provide an up-to-date statement for publication on an unedited basis. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Source links for readers

Marketing Week: Shell faces libel threat from Don
https://www.marketingweek.com/shell-faces-libel-threat-from-don/

Marketing Week: Shell faces libel action as Don’s founder issues writ
https://www.marketingweek.com/shell-faces-libel-action-as-dons-founder-issues-writ/

Marketing Week: Irate Don hits Shell investors
https://www.marketingweek.com/irate-don-hits-shell-investors/

Shell UK Media Relations press release, 17 March 1995
https://royaldutchshellplc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ShellStatementMarch1995.pdf

Archived Shell press release page
https://shellnews.net/2006affidavit/shell-press-release-dated-17-march-1995.htm

Companies House: Shell plc previous company names
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04366849

SHELL LIT THE MATCH: HOW ONE AGGRESSIVE PRESS RELEASE HELPED IGNITE THE DONOVAN FEUD was first posted on June 12, 2026 at 11:30 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 side of the Donovan feud, in its own words

Shell v Donovan: The 2006 “Confidential” Briefing That Tells Its Own Story

Shell’s Internal Script on the Donovan Feud — Including One Very Awkward Hakluyt Error

Suggested image: A dramatic satirical illustration of a confidential Shell briefing document stamped “FOCAL POINT — MR. ALFRED DONOVAN,” lying on a boardroom table beside a Shell logo, a stack of leaflets, a WIPO domain-name file, and a magnifying glass highlighting the words “Hakluyt Society?” in red ink.

Shell’s side of the Donovan feud, in its own words

Sometimes the most revealing material is not an opponent’s attack, a campaigner’s press release, or a journalist’s interpretation.

Sometimes it is the company’s own internal script.

The document reproduced below is a Shell “Confidential” briefing dated 15 May 2006 and headed “Issue: Mr. Alfred Donovan.” It appears to have been prepared as an internal “Focal Point” note for handling questions about Alfred Donovan, his long-running dispute with Shell, his website activity, leafleting outside Shell premises, domain-name registrations, litigation history, and allegations made against the company.

For readers unfamiliar with the background, Alfred Donovan and his son John Donovan were associated with Don Marketing, a promotions business that had commercial dealings with Shell. Those dealings eventually deteriorated into litigation, settlements, further disputes, a long-running public campaign, and websites highly critical of Shell and its conduct.

The value of this document is not that it settles every dispute. It plainly does not. It is Shell’s version, written for Shell’s purposes, in Shell’s language.

That is precisely why it is worth publishing.

The note states Shell’s view that it was “disappointed” that Mr Donovan’s campaign had “again resurfaced.” It says Shell was “fully aware” of the accusations but considered it inappropriate to comment on matters pending before the courts. It also says Shell believed it had gone “well beyond the strict call of duty” in investigating and settling Mr Donovan’s claims many years earlier.

The document then sets out Shell’s account of the promotions disputes, including the “Make Money” promotion, later legal action over other promotions, and Mr Donovan’s “abandoned” claim relating to the “Smart” promotion. In fact Shell paid all legal costs and John Donovan received a secret settlement payment, the terms of which Shell did not disclose, *even to the judge, who later resigned in controversial circumstances. (* I have an email from a senior Shell lawyer confirming this).

It also records the domain-name clash following the unification of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport. Shell acknowledged that Mr Donovan registered domain names including royaldutchshellplc.com, and that Shell filed an administrative complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organisation seeking transfer of the names. Shell also recorded that the WIPO panel did not accept there were grounds for transfer, and that Shell did not consider a further court challenge justified.

On the more serious allegations, Shell’s internal briefing denied any involvement in intimidation or burglary. It said Shell’s solicitors had employed “a respectable firm of enquiry agents” during litigation, and that those agents acted “entirely properly and legally.” In fact, Shell’s used undercover agents who presented fake credentials. We were bombarded by threats and besieged by undercover activity. I still have all the evidence decades later. Much of it already uploaded online.

There is also an important correction to make.

The document refers to the “Hakluyt Society.” That appears to be wrong. The Hakluyt Society is a long-established educational charity concerned with historical voyages, travel and exploration publications. The controversy historically associated with Shell, BP, Greenpeace and corporate intelligence concerns Hakluyt & Company, the private advisory/intelligence firm founded by former MI6 officers, not the publishing charity.

Whether that wording in the Shell document was an error, confusion, shorthand, or deliberate formulation is for readers to judge. But the distinction matters. The “Hakluyt Society” reference should not be allowed to blur two very different entities.

Below, therefore, is Shell’s side of the Donovan feud — not filtered through satire, not rewritten by this site, and not paraphrased into something more convenient.

It is Shell, in its own words.

DOCUMENT: SHELL “CONFIDENTIAL” FOCAL POINT BRIEFING, 15 MAY 2006

Source document:
https://shellnews.net/DPA2009/15MAY2006FOCALPOINT.pdf

Suggested placement: Embed the PDF here as an image gallery or PDF viewer, or reproduce the document pages as images with a clear caption:

Caption: Shell “Confidential” Focal Point briefing dated 15 May 2006 concerning Alfred Donovan, leafleting activity, litigation history, domain-name disputes, and Shell’s internal responses to allegations.

Why publish this now?

Because the public record should include Shell’s own version.

For years, Shell and the Donovans have been locked in a bitter and highly unusual dispute involving promotions, litigation, websites, domain names, allegations of dirty tricks, and wider questions about the oil giant’s relationship with critics.

This document does not prove Shell right. Nor does it prove Shell wrong. It does something narrower, but still valuable: it shows how Shell internally framed the matter at the time.

It shows which points Shell wanted staff or representatives to emphasise.

It shows what Shell chose to deny.

It shows how Shell described the Donovan campaign.

It shows that Shell recognised the significance of leafleting outside Shell Centre and The Hague.

It shows that Shell understood the domain-name dispute had not gone its way at WIPO.

And it shows the peculiar “Hakluyt Society” reference — a wording that deserves scrutiny because the Hakluyt Society is not the private intelligence firm associated in media reports with corporate intelligence work for oil majors.

The document is therefore being published as a matter of record.

Readers can compare Shell’s wording with other material already in the public domain and draw their own conclusions.

An invitation to Shell

Shell is invited to provide an up-to-date statement for publication on this site.

If Shell wishes to comment on the 15 May 2006 “Focal Point” document, the Donovan dispute, the domain-name issues, the allegations addressed in the briefing, or the reference to the “Hakluyt Society,” it may do so.

Shell’s statement will be published on this site on an unedited basis.

That offer is open. It has been for years.

If Shell believes the 2006 document requires clarification, correction, context, or a modern response, it is welcome to provide one.

Until then, the record stands as published: Shell’s side of the Donovan feud, in Shell’s own words.

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary accompanying a historical document. It is intended to present and contextualise Shell’s own 2006 wording, not to assert that every allegation referred to in the document is true. The linked document should be read in full. Shell is invited to provide an up-to-date statement for publication on an unedited basis. This article is not legal, financial or investment advice. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

Shell’s Confidential Donovan Briefing: The Oil Giant’s Own Words on a Feud It Couldn’t Shake was first posted on June 12, 2026 at 9:43 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