Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 22 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-065 The Sakhalin Papers LV: The Scientist Who Walked Away — Rick Steiner’s Warning to Shell, the PA-B Tow-Out and the ISRP Resignation On 14 July 2005, Independent Scientific Review Panel member Rick Steiner sent an urgent appeal directly to Royal Dutch Shell chief executive Jeroen van der Veer. The massive PA-B platform base was due to be towed to Sakhalin the following day. Steiner asked Shell to postpone it. He listed unresolved questions involving underwater noise, ship collisions, oil-spill preparedness, independent monitoring and the platform’s proximity to the feeding grounds of one of the world’s most endangered whale populations. Shell responded the next day. The tow-out went ahead. Six weeks later, Steiner resigned from the continuing scientific process.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-065
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal scientific record: IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel report, 2005
Authenticated corporate record: The Shell Sustainability Report 2005
Contemporaneous correspondence: Rick Steiner to Jeroen van der Veer, 14 July 2005; Ian Craig, Sakhalin Energy, to Steiner, 15 July 2005; Steiner resignation email, 29 August 2005
Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters-era coverage collected in the archive; The Guardian/Observer, March–September 2005
Judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: Steiner’s scientific concerns and personal assessments are attributed to him. Sakhalin Energy’s responses are attributed to the company. ISRP conclusions are distinguished from Steiner’s individual position. Neither the panel nor Steiner possessed regulatory authority to stop Sakhalin II.

Introduction

The previous three instalments followed Shell’s relationship with Sakhalin into the post-2022 world of Russian decrees, missing LNG cargoes, frozen compensation and litigation.

This file goes backwards.

To understand why Sakhalin II had become such an internationally sensitive project long before Vladimir Putin dismantled its original corporate structure, it is necessary to return to 2005.

And to a scientist who eventually decided he could no longer participate.

Rick Steiner was not an outside campaigner commenting on the Independent Scientific Review Panel from a distance.

He was inside the process.

The surviving documents provide something more useful than hindsight: they record what he said before the PA-B platform was installed, how Sakhalin Energy responded, and what he said when he subsequently withdrew.

That paper trail allows the disagreement to be reconstructed without turning either side’s position into established fact.

1. Steiner’s Sakhalin concerns pre-dated the whale panel

Rick Steiner’s involvement with Sakhalin did not begin in 2005.

Years earlier, he had examined oil-spill preparedness on the island with Dan Lawn and Jonathan Wills.

Their 1999 report, Sakhalin’s Oil: Doing It Right, was explicitly intended to review environmental monitoring and oil-spill prevention and response, and to recommend improvements. The authors described themselves as independent of government, the oil industry and organised environmental groups.

The report eventually contained 78 recommendations. Its sponsors recorded that the investigators remained concerned that Sakhalin was not yet adequately prepared either to prevent or respond to a major oil spill.

Steiner brought unusual personal experience to that subject. The report identifies him as a University of Alaska professor and former commercial fisherman who had participated in the response to the Exxon Valdez spill.

His separate paper, Oil Spills: Lessons from Alaska for Sakhalin, described catastrophic tanker accidents as a serious risk and argued for much stronger prevention and emergency-response arrangements.

Those were Steiner’s assessments.

They were not judicial findings against Sakhalin Energy.

But they establish that by the time the western gray whale controversy intensified, Steiner had already been examining Sakhalin petroleum risks for years.

2. The environmental argument widened

By January 2003, environmental organisations from Russia, the United States, Japan and South Korea had issued a common set of demands concerning Sakhalin I and II.

They called for best available technology, higher pollution-control standards and application of the precautionary principle to western gray whale habitat.

Among their demands were that the proposed PA-B platform be positioned farther from the feeding habitat; offshore pipelines avoid that habitat; seabed disturbance be reduced; seismic activity be restricted while whales were present; and cumulative effects be independently studied.

Those demands were advocacy positions.

Sakhalin Energy disputed many of them.

But the same broad subjects — noise, cumulative effects, platform location, vessel risk, spill preparedness and independent scientific scrutiny — subsequently appeared in the formal independent review process.

3. Sakhalin Energy itself requested the independent review

In 2004, Sakhalin Energy asked the International Union for Conservation of Nature — IUCN to convene an independent scientific panel to examine the potential effects of Sakhalin II Phase 2 on western North Pacific gray whales.

The population was extraordinarily small.

IUCN’s published report described approximately 100 animals and classified the population as Critically Endangered at the time. (IUCN)

This point matters.

The ISRP was not imposed on Shell by a court.

It was not a Russian regulatory tribunal.

It was an independent scientific mechanism established under IUCN auspices at Sakhalin Energy’s request.

Rick Steiner became one of the participants.

4. The panel did not give Sakhalin II a clean bill of health

The final 2005 report was far more cautious than a conventional project endorsement.

The panel acknowledged that Sakhalin Energy had spent substantial sums on whale research and mitigation.

It also concluded that significant information gaps remained.

One particularly important issue was Sakhalin Energy’s use of the engineering-risk principle:

ALARP — “as low as reasonably practicable.”

The panel said the lack of specificity in how ALARP had been applied to decisions including the PA-B platform locationprevented it from completing a rigorous evaluation of some risks and mitigation options. (IUCN Portals)

Its population modelling was equally sobering.

The panel concluded that the loss of one additional female each year, beyond then-current mortality, could drive the population towards extinction with high probability. (IUCN Portals)

The panel therefore adopted an explicitly precautionary approach.

Its strongest option was temporary suspension and delay of development around the feeding grounds while risk assessment and independent monitoring mechanisms were improved. (IUCN Portals)

That was scientific advice.

It was not an order.

5. Shell did make one major design change

The story would be distorted if the response of Shell and Sakhalin Energy were portrayed simply as rejection of the scientific process.

In March 2005, Sakhalin Energy announced that the offshore pipelines would be rerouted approximately 20 kilometresfarther from the principal feeding ground.

Contemporaneous reporting described roughly 12 additional miles of pipeline. (The Guardian)

Shell’s own Sustainability Report 2005 subsequently said that Sakhalin Energy had taken the panel’s advice and moved the offshore pipelines farther from the feeding area.

The same corporate report said advanced acoustic modelling and independent scientific observers had been used during installation of the production-platform bases and reported that installation had been completed without signs of disturbance to the whales. That was Shell’s published assessment of the outcome. (Shell)

So there was a concrete result from the scientific intervention:

the pipeline route changed.

But the platform location did not.

6. The PA-B platform became the dividing line

Contemporary press coverage immediately recognised the distinction.

The Guardian reported on 31 March 2005 that the pipelines had been rerouted but that campaigners continued demanding relocation of the platform itself. (The Guardian)

A few weeks later, Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig said the company would continue engaging whale experts and maintained that the company had been open and transparent about the project. (The Guardian)

Thus two things were simultaneously true.

Sakhalin Energy had altered part of the engineering design because of whale concerns.

And significant disagreement remained about the PA-B platform.

For Rick Steiner, that disagreement was not academic.

The concrete base was about to move.

7. 14 July 2005: an urgent letter to Jeroen van der Veer

The archive contains a remarkable one-page document dated:

14 July 2005

It is marked:

URGENT

It is addressed directly to:

Jeroen van der Veer
Chief Executive Officer
Royal Dutch Shell

The subject is:

“postponement of PA-B platform tow-out to Sakhalin.”

Steiner identifies himself as a member of the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the subsequent review process.

He says the PA-B base is scheduled to be towed to the Piltun field the following day.

His request is unambiguous:

postpone it.

8. Steiner listed what he believed remained unresolved

The significance of the letter lies in its specificity.

Steiner did not merely say that he disliked the project.

He identified outstanding subjects that he believed still required adequate resolution:

acoustic modelling;

the adequacy of the noise-impact assessment;

noise intervention and action levels;

noise-mitigation protocols;

independent oversight and monitoring;

ship-collision assessment and mitigation;

oil-spill prevention and response preparedness;

and:

independent review of the PA-B location and alternatives farther from whale habitat.

He argued that the precautionary approach required postponing the tow-out until independent review was complete and the outstanding issues had been reasonably resolved.

That is Steiner’s position in his own contemporaneous document.

It should not be conflated with a unanimous ISRP instruction.

9. The letter closely tracked concerns in the panel’s own report

This is an important distinction.

Steiner’s demand to postpone the tow-out was his.

But many of the underlying subjects were not invented by him individually.

The ISRP report itself had identified uncertainties surrounding noise, vessel collision, cumulative effects, spill risks, monitoring, mitigation and the basis for the PA-B location decision. (IUCN Portals)

The panel’s oil-spill analysis was particularly detailed.

It said effective response in Sakhalin’s severe conditions would be difficult and expensive, and noted that the PA-B Health, Safety and Environment case had not yet been completed in documentation supplied to the panel at the time of its review. (IUCN Portals)

Thus the documentary distinction is:

Steiner personally demanded postponement.

But:

the risk categories underpinning his demand had been examined by the independent panel itself.

10. Shell’s chief executive did not ignore the letter

The following day, 15 July 2005, Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig replied.

The surviving company letter says Craig had been asked by Jeroen van der Veer to respond to Steiner’s fax because van der Veer believed Craig was the appropriate person to discuss the specific matters raised.

That is significant in itself.

The appeal reached the top of Royal Dutch Shell.

And a reply came back immediately.

Craig thanked Steiner for his role in the Independent Scientific Review Panel and described the ISRP report and subsequent exchanges with Sakhalin Energy as an important contribution to the company’s efforts to mitigate potential effects on the western gray whales.

The two sides were therefore not disputing whether the science mattered.

They were disputing what should happen while the scientific process remained unfinished.

11. Sakhalin Energy said the outstanding issues were still being worked on

Craig’s reply acknowledged continuing work.

The company said a further workshop would address subjects including:

ship strikes and collisions;

noise;

oil and gas spills and accidents;

habitat disturbance and degradation;

the PA-B location;

cumulative effects;

research and monitoring;

mitigation;

and independent mechanisms for verifying compliance with protection measures.

This is an important company-side document because it confirms that, on the eve of PA-B installation, the scientific process had not simply ended.

Outstanding matters were still under discussion.

But Sakhalin Energy did not accept Steiner’s conclusion that this required stopping the platform.

12. The company relied on the Gland workshop

Craig referred to a scientific workshop held at Gland, Switzerland, in May.

According to the IUCN summary quoted in his letter, many participants accepted the proposed platform location after explanation, although some preferred no installation at that site.

The letter also said most participants considered that moving the platform to another technically accessible location was unlikely to make a significant difference to potential impacts.

Sakhalin Energy said documentation supporting that conclusion was being finalised.

Craig added that the company was concentrating on effective mitigation during installation and had gained useful experience from installation of the Lunskoye gravity-base structure earlier that month.

The company’s position can therefore be stated fairly:

continued scientific review and mitigation were compatible with proceeding with the PA-B installation.

Steiner’s position was the opposite:

the independent review should be completed before the effectively irreversible tow-out occurred.

13. This was the real disagreement

The documentary record is more interesting than a simple argument about whether Shell “listened to scientists.”

It clearly did listen in some respects.

The pipeline was rerouted.

Scientific monitoring continued.

The permanent advisory structure was later expanded.

But the PA-B episode exposed a harder governance question:

When must scientific uncertainty actually stop construction?

For Steiner, the unresolved issues justified a pause.

For Sakhalin Energy, they justified continued analysis, monitoring and mitigation while the project proceeded.

Those are materially different applications of the precautionary principle.

14. The platform proceeded

The PA-B base was subsequently installed.

Shell’s Sustainability Report 2005 presented the installation as successfully managed from the standpoint of whale disturbance, stating that external scientific observers monitored noise levels and that the platform bases were installed without observed signs of disturbance to the whales. (Shell)

That is an authenticated Shell statement.

It is not the same thing as an independent finding that every concern raised by Steiner had been resolved.

Nor does the absence of observed immediate disturbance establish the absence of every possible longer-term, cumulative or population-level effect.

The original ISRP had specifically warned against waiting for conclusive population-level evidence before addressing risks. (IUCN Portals)

15. Six weeks later, Steiner withdrew

The archive also contains Steiner’s email dated:

29 August 2005

Its heading records:

“ISRP resignation 8/29/05.”

Steiner told fellow participants:

“I have decided to opt out of further participation”

in the continuing Sakhalin II Phase 2 review process.

He said he had made his concerns clear to the other scientists, Shell and prospective lenders.

Then the email moved beyond technical criticism into personal judgment.

Steiner wrote that he believed the process was being unfairly exploited by Shell and singled out the PA-B location decision as an example.

That was Steiner’s opinion.

It was not an ISRP finding.

16. “Sub-optimization”

Steiner used a revealing concept in explaining his departure:

“sub-optimization”

He described it as doing something in the best possible way when, in his view, it should not be done at all.

He then said there was much Shell could do to make the project safer, but that he no longer believed the particular scientific process would achieve that objective.

He concluded that he could no longer participate and told potential lenders that his own recommendation was to opt out of the project.

Again, these were strong personal conclusions.

They should neither be diluted nor presented as collective findings of the other scientists.

17. The resignation became public

The dispute did not remain within scientific correspondence.

On 11 September 2005, The Observer reported Steiner’s resignation and reproduced part of his explanation.

The newspaper described the resignation as a setback for the Sakhalin project and placed it in the context of the continuing environmental controversy and the project’s sharply increasing cost. (The Guardian)

One qualification is necessary.

Some contemporary press reports simplified complicated corporate and legal developments, and not every statement in them should be accepted uncritically.

For this archive, their value is narrower:

they independently confirm that Steiner’s withdrawal and criticism were public events at the time.

The resignation was not reconstructed twenty years later.

18. Steiner did not speak for the entire panel

This point is essential.

Rick Steiner was a member of the independent scientific process.

But his resignation did not mean the entire panel had resigned.

Nor does his criticism establish that all panel members shared his assessment of Shell’s conduct.

Indeed, Ian Craig’s July reply specifically relied on the Gland discussion as evidence that many participants were prepared to accept the PA-B location after considering the alternatives.

The proper documentary formulation is therefore:

There was significant scientific concern.

There was disagreement about how the precautionary principle should affect the construction schedule.

Steiner reached a point at which he personally could no longer participate.

Others continued.

19. Nor did the scientific process disappear

In October 2006, IUCN announced the creation of the longer-term:

Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel — WGWAP

Ten scientists were initially appointed to provide continuing independent advice on Sakhalin II and wider industrial risks to the whale population. (IUCN)

This is an important counterpoint to Steiner’s resignation.

The institutional experiment did not collapse.

It became more permanent.

Indeed, the WGWAP ultimately operated for many years, generating the extensive scientific record examined in earlier Shell Leaks Files.

But later disputes show that the underlying tension did not vanish.

In 2007, IUCN reported disagreement between the scientific panel and Sakhalin Energy over underwater-noise criteria. (IUCN)

In 2009, IUCN publicly criticised Sakhalin Energy for providing important information too late for effective panel review. (IUCN)

Those later events do not retrospectively prove Steiner right about every 2005 issue.

They do establish that questions about information, timing, independent review and the relationship between scientific advice and operational decisions remained part of the Sakhalin system years after he left.

20. Shell’s own later record acknowledged the long-term value of the process

There is another side to the historical record.

Shell did not subsequently repudiate the whale-review process.

Its 2006 Sustainability Report highlighted the pipeline reroute, continuing scientific monitoring and creation of the long-term advisory panel. It said the whale population had grown and described the project’s approach as one involving independent scientific advice and operational mitigation. (Shell)

A decade later, Shell’s 2015 Sustainability Report was still citing its partnership with IUCN and the 2005 pipeline reroute as examples of efforts to reduce effects on whale habitat. (Shell)

Thus the archive should avoid an overly simple conclusion.

The scientific process both:

changed Shell’s project, and

failed to persuade Shell to accept every recommendation or every scientist’s interpretation of precaution.

Both propositions are supported by the record.

21. The controversy eventually entered an English courtroom — but on a different issue

Sakhalin II later appeared in the English High Court in:

Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth
[2008] EWHC 638 (Admin).

The case concerned access to environmental information relating to proposed UK export-credit support.

Mr Justice Mitting recorded that approximately US$650 million in project support had been sought and that Sakhalin II posed potentially serious consequences for western gray whale habitat. (vLex)

But the limits of that judgment are critical.

The court did not decide whether Steiner was correct.

It did not decide that PA-B should have been postponed.

It did not find that the platform harmed the whale population.

It did not rule that Shell had unlawfully ignored the ISRP.

The case concerned governmental disclosure.

Its relevance here is simply that the environmental controversy surrounding Sakhalin II and the western gray whale became sufficiently important to form part of an English public-law dispute over contemplated British financial support.

22. What later history can — and cannot — tell us

It is tempting to judge the 2005 dispute by looking at what subsequently happened to the whale population.

That would be too simplistic.

Later conservation work recorded encouraging population growth.

But the whales continued to face industrial, shipping, fishing and other risks.

The eventual recovery trajectory cannot tell us what would have happened under a different 2005 construction plan.

Nor can it retrospectively demonstrate that every precaution urged by Steiner was necessary.

The stronger historical comparison is procedural.

Steiner warned about:

noise;

ship collision;

spill preparedness;

cumulative effects;

independent oversight;

monitoring;

and:

making irreversible project decisions before the scientific review was complete.

Many of those same categories remained central to the WGWAP programme for years afterwards. (IUCN)

That continuity is established.

Causation is not.

Documentary Findings Established

Rick Steiner had been examining Sakhalin environmental and oil-spill risks years before the 2005 Independent Scientific Review Panel.

Sakhalin Energy asked IUCN to establish an independent scientific review of Sakhalin II Phase 2 and its potential effects on the western gray whale. (IUCN)

The ISRP identified substantial uncertainty concerning risks, mitigation and aspects of Sakhalin Energy’s decision-making, including the PA-B platform location. (IUCN Portals)

The panel’s most precautionary option was suspension and delay of development near the feeding grounds while risk assessment and independent oversight were strengthened. (IUCN Portals)

Sakhalin Energy subsequently rerouted the offshore pipelines approximately 20 kilometres farther from the principal feeding area. Shell later expressly attributed that change to the scientific review. (Energy Intelligence)

The PA-B platform itself was not relocated.

On 14 July 2005, Rick Steiner sent an urgent letter to Jeroen van der Veer requesting postponement of the PA-B tow-out and identifying multiple unresolved scientific and operational issues.

On 15 July 2005, Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig replied at van der Veer’s request. The company acknowledged continuing scientific work but defended proceeding with the platform location and mitigation process.

The PA-B installation proceeded.

On 29 August 2005, Steiner withdrew from further participation in the continuing review process.

His resignation and criticism were reported publicly in September 2005. (The Guardian)

IUCN established a permanent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel in 2006. (IUCN)

Rick Steiner’s stated position

Steiner believed the PA-B tow-out should be postponed until independent review had been completed and the outstanding scientific issues reasonably resolved.

He later concluded that the continuing process was being used in a manner with which he could no longer associate himself.

He advised prospective lenders not to support the project.

Those are Steiner’s conclusions.

They are not presented here as findings by IUCN, the full ISRP, a court or a regulator.

Sakhalin Energy’s stated position

Sakhalin Energy regarded the ISRP as a valuable contribution to whale protection.

It said the PA-B location had been extensively discussed; that many participants at the Gland workshop accepted the proposed location after explanation; that relocation within technically viable areas was not expected to produce a significant reduction in potential impact; and that mitigation and continuing scientific review could manage the remaining issues.

Shell’s subsequent Sustainability Report stated that monitoring during platform-base installation showed no signs of disturbance to the whales. (Shell)

Those are company positions and observations.

Not established

It is not established that Steiner’s July 2005 demand to postpone the PA-B tow-out represented the unanimous view of the ISRP.

It is not established that Royal Dutch Shell or Sakhalin Energy violated a legal obligation by declining to postpone the tow-out.

It is not established that installation of PA-B caused a population-level decline in western gray whales.

It is not established that the absence of observed immediate disturbance during installation proves the absence of every longer-term or cumulative effect.

It is not established that later growth in the whale population proves the 2005 scientific concerns were unnecessary.

It is not established that Steiner’s resignation invalidated the continuing IUCN scientific process.

And it is not established that the ISRP as a whole approved Sakhalin II merely because most of its members continued working with Sakhalin Energy.

Commentary

The most revealing document in this file may be the one-day exchange between Steiner and Sakhalin Energy.

On 14 July, the scientist said:

wait.

On 15 July, the company effectively said:

the scientific work will continue, but the project will continue too.

That is the point at which the abstract language of precaution met the concrete reality of a multibillion-dollar construction schedule.

The disagreement was not simply science versus ignorance.

It was more difficult than that.

Shell had commissioned independent science.

The science had already altered the project.

Shell accepted some recommendations.

It rejected — or did not accept — the operational consequence Steiner drew from others.

And the scientist then had to decide whether remaining inside the process made him more useful than leaving it.

He chose to leave.

Why the July 2005 correspondence matters

The letters also illuminate a recurrent problem in corporate scientific advisory systems.

An independent panel can investigate.

It can advise.

It can warn.

It can monitor.

But unless its mandate gives it decision-making authority, management retains the final decision.

That was true at Sakhalin.

The ISRP could identify the most precautionary option.

Steiner could appeal to Shell’s chief executive.

The scientists could continue reviewing noise, collision risks, spills and habitat.

But the scientists could not themselves order the PA-B base to remain in port.

That structural limitation does not mean the advisory process was worthless.

The pipeline reroute demonstrates the opposite.

But it explains why Steiner’s resignation deserves to be retained in the documentary history alongside Shell’s later celebration of the same scientific partnership.

Both are part of the record.

Source Record

The principal scientific source is the 2005 IUCN Independent Scientific Review Panel report, Impacts of Sakhalin II Phase 2 on Western North Pacific Gray Whales and Related Biodiversity. It records the exceptionally small whale population, the project risks, weaknesses and information gaps in some risk assessments, the panel’s concerns regarding the PA-B decision and its precautionary recommendations. (IUCN)

IUCN — Independent Scientific Review Panel report, 2005

The authenticated corporate account is The Shell Sustainability Report 2005. Shell records the establishment of the independent panel, the approximately 20-kilometre pipeline reroute, acoustic modelling, monitoring during platform-base installation and its plans for a permanent whale advisory panel. (Shell)

Shell Sustainability Report 2005

The archive holds Steiner’s 14 July 2005 urgent letter to Jeroen van der Veer, requesting postponement of the PA-B tow-out and enumerating unresolved scientific and safety issues.

It also holds Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig’s 15 July 2005 response, sent after van der Veer asked him to address Steiner’s concerns.

The archive additionally contains Steiner’s 29 August 2005 resignation email, in which he explained why he was withdrawing from further participation and set out his personal assessment of the process.

Contemporaneous reporting documents the March 2005 pipeline reroute and the continuing disagreement over the platform location. (The Guardian)

The Guardian — Shell reroutes Sakhalin pipeline, 31 March 2005

The Observer subsequently reported Steiner’s resignation on 11 September 2005. (The Guardian)

The Observer — Rick Steiner resignation, 11 September 2005

IUCN’s 2 October 2006 announcement documents the creation of the permanent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel following the original review. (IUCN)

IUCN — New Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, 2 October 2006

The judicial background is Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin). Mr Justice Mitting recorded the environmental significance of Sakhalin II, the western gray whale issue and the approximately US$650 million of contemplated UK-backed project finance. The case concerned environmental-information disclosure, not the merits of Steiner’s PA-B objections. (vLex)

Archive disclaimer: The direct Steiner correspondence records the views of one participant in the scientific process. His allegations and characterisations are attributed to him and are not adopted as findings of fact. Sakhalin Energy’s contemporaneous reply and Shell’s sustainability reporting record the company’s position. The ISRP’s conclusions are independent scientific assessments, not regulatory orders or judicial findings. No causal claim is made that PA-B installation produced a particular population-level outcome for western gray whales.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LVI: Before the Whale Panel — Rick Steiner, Exxon Valdez and the 78 Warnings Shell Faced Before Sakhalin II Phase 2

The 2005 resignation was not the beginning of Rick Steiner’s Sakhalin story.

Six years earlier, he had already travelled to the island with two other oil-pollution specialists.

Their report was called:

Sakhalin’s Oil: Doing It Right

It contained:

78 recommendations.

The investigators examined tanker routes, double hulls, tug escorts, vessel monitoring, spill-response equipment, independent oversight, liability, emergency exercises and the implications of trying to clean oil from some of the harshest waters on earth.

Steiner then carried the lessons of the Exxon Valdez disaster into a separate warning about Sakhalin.

One sentence captured his central concern:

a major accident off Sakhalin would not merely be an environmental disaster — it could become an economic and social catastrophe as well.

The next file returns to 1999 and asks:

What did Steiner and his colleagues tell Shell and the Sakhalin authorities six years before he walked away from the whale-review process — and how many of those warnings were still unresolved when Sakhalin II Phase 2 moved ahead?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 22 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 22, 2026 at 7:09 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Shell Singapore has been formally charged over two oil pollution incidents at its Pulau Bukom refinery, including allegations that the company failed to report the discharges to Singapore authorities without delay.

The charges, filed on 22 September 2026 under Singapore’s Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, relate to separate incidents in October and December 2024 at the Shell Singapore Energy and Chemicals Park on Pulau Bukom.

According to Channel NewsAsia, the first incident involved approximately 40 tonnes of oily mixture being discharged into Singapore waters through a hole in a pipeline within Shell’s refining facility at about 8am on 20 October 2024. (CNA)

The charge alleges that Shell did not notify the port master until approximately 12.55pm that day. (CNA)

That timing is potentially important because Singapore regulations require operators of such facilities to report pollution incidents without delay and to the fullest extent possible.

A second leak two months later

The prosecution also concerns a second pollution incident over the Christmas period of 2024.

According to the charges reported by CNA, an estimated 485kg to 956kg of oil mixture entered Singapore waters from the Pulau Bukom facility between approximately 9.30am on 26 December and 8.30am on 28 December 2024. (CNA)

Shell is again accused of failing to report the incident immediately.

The December incident had already attracted regulatory attention at the time. Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority and National Environment Agency announced on 27 December 2024 that Shell had shut down an oil-processing unit while the suspected leak was investigated.

Shell estimated at the time that a few tonnes of refined petroleum products had leaked together with cooling-water discharge. Containment booms, absorbent material, dispersants and an oil-skimming system were deployed, while government agencies used boats, satellites and drones to monitor the surrounding waters. (MPA)

Precautionary booms were also deployed at locations including the Sisters’ Islands Marine Park and Sentosa.

The October 2024 incident

The earlier October incident had involved what authorities described at the time as a leak from a Shell land-based pipeline between Bukom Island and Bukom Kecil.

The Maritime and Port Authority said on 20 October 2024 that it had been alerted at about 1pm to a leakage that had occurred at approximately 5.30am that morning. Shell deployed containment booms and vessels equipped with dispersants, while MPA deployed additional craft, drones and satellite surveillance. (MPA)

By the end of that month, Singapore authorities said the clean-up of the leaked material — described as “slop”, an oily mixture — had been completed and that no further oil sightings had been observed at sea or ashore. Investigations nevertheless remained ongoing. (MPA)

The significance of the latest development is that those investigations have now resulted in charges.

Shell asks for more time

At the 22 September court hearing, a Shell representative reportedly requested an eight-week adjournment.

According to CNA, the company said it needed time to obtain internal instructions, appoint legal counsel and locate historical records.

One complication is that the business associated with the incidents was divested in 2025, according to Shell’s representative. The company therefore said additional time would be necessary to retrieve and examine the relevant historical material before responding to the allegations. (CNA)

The proceedings were adjourned until October.

CNA also reported that Shell faces a separate prosecution by Singapore’s National Environment Agency concerning the same incidents. (CNA)

Potential penalties

The penalties are not insignificant.

According to CNA, an entity convicted as the occupier of land from which oil or an oily mixture is discharged into Singapore waters may face a fine ranging from S$1,000 to S$1 million.

A failure to report such a discharge without delay and to the fullest extent possible can attract a further fine of up to S$5,000. (CNA)

These are charges, not findings of guilt. Shell has not yet presented its substantive response to the allegations, and the issues will now proceed through Singapore’s judicial process.

From “top priority” to courtroom

There is, however, an uncomfortable contrast between the present charges and Shell’s public statements when the December 2024 leak occurred.

At the time, Shell said that the health and safety of its employees and protection of the environment were its “top priority”, while emphasising that it was cooperating with authorities and carrying out containment and clean-up operations. (CNA)

Nearly two years later, Singapore prosecutors are not merely examining how the oil escaped. They are also alleging failures in the way the incidents were reported.

That makes this more than another historical Shell spill story.

The court will have to determine whether the prosecution’s allegations are proved. But the existence of formal charges means that questions surrounding the Pulau Bukom leaks — including how the discharges occurred and how promptly Shell informed regulators — are now matters for judicial scrutiny rather than simply corporate explanation.

For a company that routinely emphasises its commitment to safety, environmental responsibility and regulatory compliance, that is a development worth watching closely.

Source: Channel NewsAsia, 22 September 2026; Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore statements concerning the October and December 2024 Pulau Bukom incidents.

Shell Singapore Charged Over Pulau Bukom Oil Leaks and Alleged Reporting Delays was first posted on September 22, 2026 at 6:47 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

In a move that has left the entire public relations industry gasping for air (and possibly a stiff drink), Shell has once again turned to the wizards of spin at MSQ Partners. The London-based group, which joined Shell’s global agency roster back in 2022 and has been gamely polishing the oil major’s image ever since, now faces what industry insiders are calling “the Mount Everest of reputation management – if Everest were made of crude oil, blood, and decades of awkward court documents.”

MSQ’s own Stephen Maher once declared the firm “absolutely thrilled” to work with the “truly world class brand that is Shell.” One can only assume the thrill has since curdled into a low, constant humming of existential dread.

Because let’s be honest: this is not a rebrand. This is an exorcism. And the demons have resumes longer than a tanker of Nigerian crude.

A Brief, Highly Incomplete History of Why This Job Is a Nightmare

Start with the Nazi past. Sir Henri Deterding, the Dutch founder often called the “Napoleon of oil,” developed a soft spot for Hitler in the 1930s. He met the Führer, funneled support, and Shell’s German subsidiary Rhenania-Ossag obligingly purged Jewish board members and played ball with the regime. Shell fuel helped power both sides of the war in the finest “we’re just a neutral energy company” tradition. Modern Shell prefers not to dwell on this chapter. MSQ’s brief: “Make the 1930s look like a charming period of energetic European collaboration.”

Then came the 2004 reserves scandal – the corporate equivalent of claiming you had a full tank when you were actually running on fumes and lies. Shell overstated proved reserves by roughly 4.5 billion barrels (about 20–23%). Top executives exited stage left. Regulators handed out record fines. Shareholders sued. The company’s dual-board structure collapsed under the weight of its own creative accounting. MSQ’s challenge: “Position this as an early example of radical transparency and bold leadership.”

Sakhalin-2 deserves its own chapter in the “How Not to Do International Business” handbook. Shell poured years and billions into the Russian LNG project, only to watch Moscow gradually strong-arm it out of majority control. After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Shell announced a dramatic exit… and walked away with essentially nothing as Putin’s decree transferred the asset to a new Russian operator. Gazprom eventually scooped up the former Shell stake. MSQ’s task: “Frame the multi-billion-dollar write-down as a principled stand for democracy, preferably with soft lighting and a hopeful piano soundtrack.”

Nigeria remains the gift that keeps on litigating. Decades of oil spills in the Niger Delta, the Ogoni struggle, the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni Nine, ongoing English High Court cases over pollution in communities like Bille and Ogale, settlements, denials, and more spills. Shell has paid out, fought jurisdiction battles all the way to the UK Supreme Court, and still faces fresh claims. Recent internal documents disclosed in litigation have not exactly helped the “we’re responsible operators” narrative. MSQ’s mission: “Turn chronic environmental catastrophe and human rights controversies into a heartwarming story of community partnership and continuous improvement.”

Worker safety? Shell reports Goal Zero ambitions while contractors keep dying or getting crushed, burned, or maimed. Fines for crushed feet on North Sea gangways, propane releases causing severe burns, explosions at facilities, and ongoing process safety events form a steady drumbeat. MSQ’s creative brief: “Safety is our highest priority – please ignore the body count and the HSE prosecution records.”

And then there is the spying. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Shell (alongside BP) used private intelligence firm Hakluyt – staffed with former MI6 types – to infiltrate and monitor Greenpeace and other campaigners. Agents posed as filmmakers and left-wing sympathisers. The goal: neutralise inconvenient activism. More recently, Shell has reached for SLAPP-style lawsuits against Greenpeace over peaceful platform occupations, demanding millions and permanent protest bans before eventually settling. MSQ’s assignment: “Portray rigorous competitive intelligence and robust legal defence of critical energy infrastructure. Soft focus. Preferably no trench coats.”

The MSQ Challenge, Ranked by Difficulty

1. Convince the public that a company with this track record is suddenly the face of the energy transition.
2. Make “we’re investing in lower-carbon solutions while still maximising oil and gas returns” sound coherent.
3. Produce campaigns that survive five minutes of fact-checking by anyone with internet access and a functioning memory.
4. Keep the account without the entire creative team developing stress-related facial tics.

Industry observers note that MSQ already has experience with fossil clients (including BP). Experience, however, is not the same as a miracle.

One anonymous PR veteran put it best: “This isn’t reputation management. This is reputation archaeology – carefully excavating layer after layer of scandal while trying to convince everyone the skeleton underneath is actually a green hydrogen pioneer.”

### Suggested Headlines for the Coming Campaigns

– “Shell: Powering Progress Since the 1930s (Some Chapters May Contain Historical Inaccuracies)”
– “From Reserves Overstatement to Net-Zero Ambition: A Journey of Continuous Learning”
– “Nigeria: Where Every Spill Is an Opportunity for Dialogue”
– “Sakhalin-2: The Exit Strategy That Wrote Itself”
– “We Used to Spy on Greenpeace. Now We Just Sue Them. Progress!”
– “Safety First (Results May Vary by Contractor Status and Geography)”
– “MSQ + Shell: Because Even the Most Toxic Brands Deserve a Second, Third, and Twenty-Seventh Chance”

In the end, one almost feels sorry for the creatives at MSQ. Almost. They signed up to sell the idea that one of the world’s most historically compromised oil majors is a force for good. That is not a communications brief. That is a dare.

Good luck, MSQ. You’re going to need every ounce of joined-up thinking, every influencer, every carefully worded press release, and possibly a time machine.

Shell, meanwhile, continues to produce oil, gas, profits, and – with any luck – slightly better headlines than the ones history keeps writing for it.

The satire writes itself. The PR, unfortunately, does not.

Shell Hires MSQ: The PR Firm That Promised the Impossible – “Make Us Look Nice, or at Least Not Actively Evil” was first posted on September 21, 2026 at 11:15 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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: LONDON Agency’s newly created “Cosmic Eraser & Vibe Realignment” department promises to reframe a century of corporate blunders into modern lifestyle aesthetics. LONDON — In what industry insiders are calling “the ultimate test of human optimism vs. historical reality,” global marketing group MSQ has formally accepted the monumental task of polishing the reputation of oil giant Shell. The landmark appointment—following a grueling six-month pitch process codenamed Operation Febreze—will see MSQ agencies tackle what experts describe as the advertising equivalent of vacuuming an active volcano. “We know what the skeptics are saying,” said an MSQ spokesperson while frantically adjusting an industrial air scrubber. “They look at Shell’s history and see ‘unmitigated disaster.’ We look at it and see an untapped goldmine of narrative reframing! The past isn’t a liability; it’s just content that hasn’t been properly filtered yet.” The Strategy: Bucket-by-Bucket Modernization According to leaked strategy decks, MSQ plans to tackle Shell’s most notorious corporate friction points using cutting-edge TikTok trends, soothing sepia tones, and high-frequency corporate doublespeak:

• The 1930s Nazi Germany Chapter: Rather than dwelling on former chief Sir Henri Deterding’s enthusiastic support for the Third Reich, creative teams are developing a retro “Extreme Longevity & Heritage Logistics” campaign. Soft-focus reels will celebrate “pioneering cross-border supply chains,” gently blurring the distinction between Allied and Axis fuel lines under a warm, vintage Instagram filter.
• The 2004 Reserves Scandal: When executive Walter van de Vijver famously emailed that he was “sick and tired of lying” after Shell artificially inflated its proven oil reserves by 3.9 billion barrels, it was viewed as a major fraud. MSQ is re-launching this on LinkedIn as an “Early Corporate Wellness & Radical Executive Vulnerability” milestone. The missing 3.9 billion barrels will be rebranded as a pioneer project in “Virtual Asset Architecture.”
• The Sakhalin-II Siberian Debacle: Environmental protests and endangered whale disruptions in the Russian Far East will be transformed into a calm, ASMR-infused eco-travel series titled “Siberian Whispers.” The series will focus exclusively on digitally rendered cranes nesting near deactivated drill bits to a lo-fi beats soundtrack.
• The Nigerian Conduct & Ogoniland Litigation: Decades of devastating oil spills, human rights controversies, and ongoing litigation in Ogoniland will be addressed through an ambitious “Earth-Element Synergy & Local Hydration” narrative, accompanied by limited-edition artisanal mud masks packaged in recycled Shell-branded canisters.
• Worker Safety & Offshore Records: High-risk offshore operations and safety infractions will be gamified via branded VR headsets for rig workers. The headsets will overlay serene tropical rainforests and singing birds directly onto heavy drilling machinery, ensuring workers enjoy a tranquil sensory environment during manual turbine startups.

Hazard Pay and On-Site Support Acknowledging the extreme mental strain on account managers required to pitch “carbon-neutral crude” with a straight face, MSQ has reportedly updated its workplace benefits. Account managers assigned to the Shell account will receive mandatory hazard pay, complimentary burn cream, and unlimited sessions with corporate-sponsored spiritual healers. “When you’re hired to perform PR for a house fire while the fire department is still arguing over who brings the hose, you need a strong team,” noted one senior strategist. “We aren’t just shifting paradigms—we’re bending reality.” (Disclaimer: No historical facts were harmed in the making of this campaign, though several were heavily re-edited for vibe optimization.) MSQ Launches ‘Project Extreme Gloss’ After Winning Shell PR Account was first posted on September 21, 2026 at 11:03 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

The following is understood to be an internal document circulated to new starters on MSQ’s Shell business. We cannot verify its authenticity, but we also cannot stop laughing.

In a move surprising absolutely no one who has watched the energy giant cycle through PR partners the way other companies cycle through printer ink, Shell has confirmed — or at least not denied loudly enough — that MSQ is now steering the wheel of its global reputation management. It is, by any honest measure, one of the more ambitious contracts in modern advertising history, roughly equivalent to being hired to do the PR for a house fire while the fire department is still deciding whether to show up.

Anyone drafting MSQ’s onboarding deck faces an unusual challenge: where, precisely, does one begin a “brand journey” for a company whose corporate lineage runs through Nazi-era Germany, a 2004 reserves scandal so severe it triggered boardroom resignations and regulatory fines, the multi-billion-dollar fiasco of Sakhalin-2, decades of litigation over oil spills and human rights abuses in the Niger Delta, and a worker safety record that has, at various points, made headlines for exactly the wrong reasons? A normal rebrand starts with a mood board. This one might need a legal disclaimer.

Industry sources — by which we mean anyone who has read a newspaper since 1998 — note that Shell’s approach to reputational crisis has traditionally followed a reliable four-step formula: acknowledge nothing, commission a sustainability report, sponsor something green-sounding, and wait for the news cycle to move on. MSQ, to its credit, appears to specialize in precisely this kind of narrative alchemy — the agency’s own promotional materials speak fondly of helping brands “celebrate who they really are.” Whether Shell’s marketing team has fully thought through the implications of that phrase remains, charitably, unclear.

A satirical read of the pitch deck might go something like this: Slide one — “Shell: Powering Progress.” Slide two, in much smaller font — “Progress Toward What, Exactly, Is Still Under Discussion.” Slide three is presumably several hundred pages of historical footnotes, delivered separately, under embargo, by courier.

One imagines the MSQ creative team’s first internal meeting went something like: “So they want warmth, trust, and an emotional connection with the customer.” “Right. And the Ogoni Nine litigation?” “We were told not to bring that up unless someone else does first.” “And Sakhalin?” “Reframe as ‘ambitious international expansion.'” “And the Nazi thing?” “…We’re going to need a bigger meeting.”

To be fair to MSQ, this is not their first rodeo with a controversial energy client, and PR agencies have never been shy about taking on difficult accounts — that’s rather the point of the profession. But there’s difficult, and then there’s “decades-deep archive of primary-source documents maintained by aggrieved former business partners who have made it their life’s work to fact-check every press release in real time.” Shell’s critics didn’t get the memo that the rebrand was supposed to make this easier.

Welcome to the team.

Congratulations on joining the Shell account. You were selected for this role because you either (a) have a strong stomach, (b) have never used a search engine, or (c) both. This document will help you get up to speed quickly.

Section 1: Things you are not to Google on your first day

We know the instinct. Don’t. HR has asked us to remind you that “just doing some background reading” is not covered by your onboarding budget and may result in a mandatory wellness session.

Section 2: A brief, upbeat history of the brand

Founded in the early 20th century, Shell has weathered — and we cannot stress this enough, weathered — a series of what we internally call “legacy narrative opportunities.” These include a period of historical fuel-supply diversification during a regrettable European conflict, a 2004 accounting recalibration involving several billion barrels that were there and then, through no fault of anyone in particular, weren’t, an ambitious Siberian infrastructure project that came in only mildly over budget (four times, but who’s counting), and multiple decades of what affected communities have unhelpfully insisted on calling “litigation” rather than “engaged stakeholder dialogue.”

Section 3: Key talking points to memorize

• If asked about worker safety, pivot to “our unwavering commitment to continuous improvement.”
• If asked about Nigeria, pivot to “our unwavering commitment to continuous improvement.”
• If asked about literally anything else, also pivot to “our unwavering commitment to continuous improvement.” It is, our research shows, remarkably weatherproof.

Section 4: Creative do’s and don’ts

DO lean into resilience, heritage, and “energy for a changing world.”
DON’T use the word “changing” near the word “climate” without three rounds of legal sign-off.
DO use soft lighting.
DON’T use soft lighting anywhere near an actual drilling platform, a courtroom, or a 1930s photograph.

Section 5: A note on morale

Some colleagues have asked whether it’s ethically complicated to build a “trust and warmth” campaign for a client with this particular back catalogue. We’d remind the team that MSQ has a long and proud history of finding the emotional truth in difficult briefs — oat milk, budget airlines, the occasional bank. This is simply the next one. A slightly bigger one. With its own Wikipedia category tree.

Welcome aboard. Your NDA is attached separately and is, we’re told, considerably longer than this document.

MSQ Takes the Shell Account: A Job Description That Should Have Come With Hazard Pay was first posted on September 21, 2026 at 10:37 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

LONDON — In a move hailed by branding experts as “the ultimate stress test for human optimism,” marketing and technology group MSQ has successfully landed a spot on Shell’s global agency roster. The agency group will reportedly deploy its finest minds to tackle the oil titan’s latest and most elusive challenge: convincing the public that decades of corporate controversies are actually just a vintage, artisanal mist. The appointment, which followed a grueling six-month competitive pitch process handled by the intermediary Booster, will see MSQ agencies like The Gate and MBAstack handling everything from digital marketing to influencer campaigns. Insiders report that the agency won the business after presenting a pitch deck codenamed “Project Chameleon.” The core strategy? Deploying high-frequency AI algorithms and TikTok lifestyle trends to ensure that if the future is rendered in a shiny enough gloss, the past becomes visually inaccessible. The PR Roadblocks: A Scannable Overview To construct its new global campaign, MSQ is reportedly dividing Shell’s brand liabilities into discrete narrative buckets, matching historical corporate friction points with modern marketing buzzwords:

• The Nazi Germany Chapter (1930s): Rather than ignoring the reality that former long-serving Shell chief Sir Henri Deterding backed the Third Reich, creative teams are mapping out an “Extreme Longevity” campaign. The angle focuses exclusively on “early pioneering transport logistics,” using soft sepia filters to gently blur the distinction between Allied and Axis fuel supply chains.
• The 2004 Reserves Scandal: When investigative reports from The Independent exposed a three-year plan to deceive shareholders by deliberately overstating proven oil and gas reserves by 3.9 billion barrels, exploration chief Walter van de Vijver famously emailed that he was “sick and tired of lying.” MSQ plans to reframe this via LinkedIn thought leadership as a pioneering corporate wellness moment where an executive felt safe expressing vulnerability. The missing oil will be rebranded as an early experiment in “Virtual Asset Architecture” and “Proactive Asset Manifestation.”
• The Sakhalin-II Siberian Debacle: The massive liquefied natural gas project, which was heavily mired in environmental protests regarding whale populations before Shell ceded control, will be transformed into a luxury eco-influencer travel series titled “Siberian Whispers.” The content will focus entirely on beautifully rendered, digitally generated Siberian cranes nesting near deactivated drill bits.
• The Worker Safety Record: Decades of friction with unions and watchdogs over high-risk offshore operations and community health impacts in regions like Ogoniland will be addressed via a high-concept employee wellness initiative. Branded VR headsets will overlay virtual tropical forests onto heavy industrial drilling platforms.

“Ethical Agility” in the Creative Department According to an anonymous copywriter at The Gate, the biggest win was reframing the massive executive payouts during historical corporate crises. Sir Philip Watts’ multi-million-pound exit package is being pitched to the market not as a “fat cat reward,” but as the ultimate masterclass in setting personal boundaries and corporate self-care. When questioned by trade journalists on whether the strategy is growing too grim for consumer advertising, an executive close to the pitch defended the tone. “Look, ad-land loves a challenge,” he said, requesting anonymity while adjusting a lapel pin featuring a stylized, carbon-neutral scallop shell. “Anyone can market a trendy oat milk. But it takes true, unadulterated marketing genius to take a corporate entity that fueled both sides of the Blitz, fabricated a quarter of its global assets, and then turn it into a curated lifestyle brand for people who drive hybrid SUVs. It’s not dark—it’s narrative transformation.” When asked how the agency plans to balance its own sustainability pledges with its new client, an internal memo leaked from MSQ offered a comforting reminder to staff: “Remember, carbon offsetting is a state of mind. For every heavy-industrial oil campaign we print in real life, a digital tree is planted in our corporate metaverse. We’re doing our part.” At press time, MSQ teams were seen reviewing an AI-generated script for a corporate apology video, searching for a synonym for “systemic deception” that sounds like “an unexpected journey toward sustainability.” MSQ Unveils Brand New ‘Industrial-Strength Air Freshener’ Division Following Shell Appointment was first posted on September 21, 2026 at 10:09 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

 

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-064 The Sakhalin Papers LIV: The Russian LNG Contract That Survived — Shell Announced Its Exit in 2022. Its 2025 Accounts Still List the Novatek Deal In March 2022, Shell announced that it intended to withdraw from all Russian hydrocarbons, including LNG. Yet a long-term contract signed with Novatek in 2015 survived the withdrawal from Sakhalin, survived the disposal of Shell’s Russian retail business, and was still being reported by Shell in its 2025 Form 20-F, published in March 2026. Shell confirmed in 2023 that it was continuing to receive Yamal LNG cargoes under the agreement. The latest accounts confirm that the contract still exists — but do not establish whether Shell is still physically taking cargoes today. New European and British restrictions now place a significant regulatory deadline at the beginning of 2027.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-064
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: NOVATEK contract announcement, 4 June 2015; Shell Russia statements, February–March 2022; Shell Annual Reports 2022–2025; UK sanctions regulations and guidance; EU REPowerEU gas regulation
Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, Interfax and Argus
Evidence standard: The existence of Shell’s long-term Novatek contract is established by Shell’s latest SEC filing. Continued physical receipt of Yamal LNG was confirmed by Shell in February 2023. No public evidence located for this instalment establishes that Shell continues taking individual Yamal cargoes in September 2026. Those are separate propositions and are treated separately below.

Introduction

Yesterday’s file followed the Sakhalin LNG contract that disappeared.

Today’s concerns the Russian LNG contract that did not.

On 4 June 2015, Novatek announced that its trading subsidiary, Novatek Gas & Power, had signed a long-term LNG agreement with:

Shell International Trading Middle East.

The quantity was approximately:

900,000 tonnes a year

for:

more than 20 years.

The LNG would come from the Yamal LNG project in the Russian Arctic. (Novatek)

Seven years later, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Shell announced that it intended to withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons.

The Sakhalin LNG contract subsequently collapsed.

The Novatek contract did not.

And Shell’s most recent annual filing still lists it.

1. The contract was signed when Russia was “of great importance” to Shell

The original Novatek announcement remains online.

It records that Novatek Gas & Power, a wholly owned Novatek trading subsidiary, signed the agreement with Shell International Trading Middle East on 4 June 2015.

The annual volume was approximately 0.9 million tonnes of LNG and the duration was more than twenty years. (Novatek)

At the time, Shell Vice-President of LNG Trading David Wells described Russia as:

“a country of great importance for Shell.”

That statement belonged to an entirely different geopolitical period.

Yamal LNG had not yet started production.

Shell was positioning itself as a major customer of Russia’s emerging Arctic LNG industry.

Argus contemporaneously described the agreement as a 20-year supply contract for about 900,000 tonnes annually from the planned 16.5-million-tonne-per-year Yamal project. (Argus Media)

2. This was not a Shell-owned LNG project

The distinction from Sakhalin is fundamental.

At Sakhalin II, Shell had been a shareholder and project participant as well as an LNG purchaser.

At Yamal, Shell’s relationship was commercial.

The seller was Novatek Gas & Power.

Shell International Trading Middle East was the buyer.

The LNG originated from Yamal LNG.

Shell did not need an equity interest in the producing project to incorporate those cargoes into its global LNG trading portfolio.

That portfolio structure matters because Shell buys substantial volumes of LNG from third parties and trades them alongside LNG produced by projects in which it owns equity.

Shell’s 2022 Annual Report described exactly that model: term purchases, third-party supplies, shipping flexibility and the ability to redirect cargoes between customers and markets.

3. Then came 8 March 2022

Twelve days after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Shell issued a major public announcement.

On 8 March 2022, Shell said it intended to withdraw from involvement in:

all Russian hydrocarbons, including crude oil, petroleum products, gas and LNG.

But the announcement contained an important qualification.

The withdrawal would occur:

“in a phased manner.”

(Shell)

Shell’s immediate action was to stop spot purchases of Russian crude oil.

The company did not announce that every pre-existing long-term Russian supply agreement had been cancelled that day.

That distinction subsequently became central to the Novatek contract.

4. “Phased withdrawal” did not mean every contract vanished

The practical problem was contractual.

A corporate decision to withdraw from a country does not necessarily extinguish long-term commercial obligations.

Shell could dispose of an equity investment.

It could close a retail operation.

It could stop making spot purchases.

But long-term sales-and-purchase agreements may contain obligations extending for decades, together with termination provisions, force-majeure provisions, governing-law clauses and dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Those contractual terms are not publicly available for the Shell-Novatek agreement.

Accordingly, this archive cannot state that Shell was free simply to walk away from it in March 2022.

Nor can it state that Shell was legally compelled to continue indefinitely.

The contract itself has not been published.

5. Shell stopped buying Russian LNG on the spot market

Shell’s later reporting makes an important distinction.

After its March 2022 announcement, Shell ceased spot purchases of Russian LNG.

It also allowed various oil, oil-product and pipeline-gas arrangements to expire.

But two long-term Russian LNG contracts remained at the end of 2022.

One concerned Sakhalin.

The other concerned Novatek and Yamal LNG. (Interfax)

This distinction between spot transactions and long-term contractual purchases explains much of what otherwise appears contradictory.

Shell was withdrawing.

But some legacy contracts continued to exist.

6. In February 2023 Shell confirmed that Yamal cargoes were still arriving

This is the strongest public evidence that the Novatek contract was not merely an accounting relic.

On 2 February 2023, a Shell spokesperson told Reuters that Shell was:

still receiving Russian LNG cargoes under its long-term Novatek contract.

Reuters identified the arrangement as the more-than-20-year agreement for approximately 900,000 tonnes annually from Yamal LNG. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

Interfax reported the same contractual distinction.

Shell was no longer receiving cargoes from Sakhalin.

But the Novatek/Yamal agreement remained. (Interfax)

This was therefore not simply a dormant contract sitting on Shell’s books in early 2023.

Shell publicly acknowledged continuing performance.

7. The contrast with Sakhalin could hardly be clearer

By February 2023, Shell had two very different Russian LNG stories.

Sakhalin

Cargoes had stopped.

Shell was examining its legal position.

Shell subsequently concluded that the old Sakhalin Energy company had renounced the contract through non-performance and that the agreement stood terminated.

Yamal

Cargoes were still being received.

The Novatek contract remained in force.

That divergent treatment is documented in Shell’s own subsequent filings. (SEC)

Whatever the broader political policy of withdrawing from Russian hydrocarbons, the two long-term LNG contracts followed completely different legal paths.

8. Shell continued disclosing the Novatek contract

The annual-report trail is unusually revealing.

Shell’s 2023 Form 20-F said:

“Shell still holds one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity.” (SEC)

Shell’s 2024 Form 20-F repeated the disclosure. (SEC)

Then came the 2025 Form 20-F, filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on 12 March 2026.

Again Shell stated that in 2022 it had announced its intention to withdraw in a phased manner from all Russian hydrocarbons.

Again it recorded its residual Sakhalin shareholding.

And again it stated:

“Shell still holds one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity.”

(SEC)

Four years after the withdrawal announcement, the contract remained sufficiently relevant to be disclosed in Shell’s principal annual regulatory filing.

9. What the 2025 filing does — and does not — establish

The wording needs to be read precisely.

Shell says it holds the contract.

That establishes the continuing contractual relationship.

But the filing does not say:

how many Yamal cargoes Shell received in 2025;

whether it received any in early 2026;

where any cargoes were delivered;

what Shell paid for them;

what profits or losses arose;

whether the contract has been amended;

or whether Shell and Novatek are negotiating its termination.

No such conclusions should be inserted into the evidential gap.

The latest authenticated Shell record establishes the existence of the contract.

The latest explicit confirmation located that Shell was physically receiving cargoes dates from February 2023. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

That distinction matters.

10. The UK had already banned Russian LNG from entering Britain

The continuation of Shell’s contract should not be confused with continued importation of Russian LNG into the United Kingdom.

The UK government introduced a prohibition on Russian LNG imports taking effect on:

1 January 2023.

The measure prohibited Russian-origin or Russian-consigned LNG from entering the UK and covered acquisition where the intention was to bring the LNG into Britain. (GOV.UK)

By May 2023, the UK government said Britain had gone a full year without importing Russian gas. (GOV.UK)

Thus a Shell group company holding a Russian LNG purchase contract did not mean those cargoes were entering Britain.

Shell is a global LNG trader.

Cargoes can be marketed internationally.

11. Europe initially took a different route

For several years after the invasion, Russian LNG continued flowing into European markets even while Russian oil and coal faced much broader prohibitions.

That explains why the Novatek contract could remain commercially relevant after February 2022.

The legal position has since changed substantially.

In January 2026, the European Union formally adopted rules providing for a stepwise prohibition on imports of Russian pipeline gas and LNG.

For long-term Russian LNG contracts, the EU prohibition takes effect on:

1 January 2027.

(Council of the European Union)

The regulation specifically provides transitional treatment for existing contracts rather than treating them as though they had ceased to exist retrospectively.

That is particularly relevant to an agreement signed as far back as 2015.

12. Britain has also tightened the LNG transport regime

The United Kingdom has since moved beyond the original prohibition on LNG entering Britain.

In May 2026, the government published a general trade licence concerning new prohibitions on the maritime transportation of Russian LNG and associated services.

The licence expires on:

1 January 2027.

The government also states that an exception exists until that date for certain obligations arising under contracts concluded before 17 June 2025, subject to the regulatory conditions. (GOV.UK)

Whether particular Shell activities fall within any prohibition, licence or exception would depend on the entities, vessels, services, destinations and contractual arrangements involved.

This archive makes no finding on that legal question.

What is established is that both British and EU policy now point toward 1 January 2027 as a major date for Russian LNG trading arrangements.

13. The contract may be much longer than the remaining regulatory window

The original agreement was for more than twenty years.

It was signed in 2015 for LNG from a project expected to start production in 2017.

The publicly available announcement does not provide an exact contractual expiry date.

It is therefore unsafe to manufacture one.

But a contract of more than twenty years was plainly intended to continue well beyond 2027 unless terminated or otherwise affected by law. (Novatek)

This creates the central tension now visible in the documentary record:

commercial contract duration versus sanctions and regulatory withdrawal deadlines.

A contract drafted to operate for decades is encountering a legal environment that changed fundamentally within a few years.

14. There is no identified public court battle over the Yamal agreement

The Sakhalin story has generated litigation.

The Gazprom Export pipeline-gas dispute has generated a pending Moscow claim of approximately €1.5 billion.

No comparable publicly identified court judgment or arbitral award concerning the Shell-Novatek Yamal LNG purchase contract has been located for this instalment.

That does not prove there has been no confidential negotiation or arbitration.

LNG contracts frequently provide for private dispute resolution.

What can be said is narrower:

Shell continues to report the contract rather than reporting it as terminated.

That makes the position markedly different from the Sakhalin contract.

15. Yamal LNG must not be confused with Arctic LNG 2

There is another important distinction.

The Shell contract discussed here concerns:

Yamal LNG.

It should not be confused with Novatek’s newer:

Arctic LNG 2.

The projects have different ownership structures, histories and sanctions exposure.

Yamal LNG entered production years before the invasion.

Arctic LNG 2 became a major target of subsequent Western sanctions.

Shell’s 2015 long-term contract specifically referred to LNG from Yamal LNG. (Novatek)

Conflating the two would distort both the contractual and sanctions history.

16. Why did this Russian contract survive when Sakhalin did not?

The public record supports several factual distinctions.

The Sakhalin operator was forcibly restructured by presidential decree.

The old Sakhalin counterparty stopped performing Shell’s LNG purchase agreement.

Shell consequently treated that contract as renounced and terminated.

No equivalent cessation of performance has been publicly established for the Novatek agreement.

Indeed, Shell expressly confirmed in February 2023 that Yamal cargoes were still being received. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

The simplest documentary explanation is therefore also the safest:

Sakhalin stopped performing. Novatek did not — at least as of the last public confirmation of physical deliveries.

The later regulatory environment may ultimately determine what happens next.

Documentary Findings Established

On 4 June 2015, Novatek Gas & Power signed a long-term LNG supply contract with Shell International Trading Middle East. (Novatek)

The contract provided approximately 900,000 tonnes of Yamal LNG annually for more than twenty years. (Novatek)

On 8 March 2022, Shell announced its intention to withdraw in a phased manner from all Russian hydrocarbons, expressly including LNG. (Shell)

Shell ceased Russian LNG spot purchases but retained long-term contractual relationships. (Interfax)

In February 2023, a Shell spokesperson confirmed to Reuters that Shell was still receiving Russian LNG cargoes under the Novatek contract. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

Shell’s Sakhalin LNG contract subsequently terminated following non-performance by its counterparty, while the Novatek contract remained.

Shell’s 2023, 2024 and 2025 annual regulatory filings all continued to identify one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity. (SEC)

Shell filed its 2025 Form 20-F on 12 March 2026. (Shell)

The UK prohibited Russian LNG imports into Britain from 1 January 2023. (GOV.UK)

The EU has adopted a prohibition on Russian LNG imports under long-term contracts taking effect from 1 January 2027. (Council of the European Union)

The UK has also introduced restrictions concerning maritime transport of Russian LNG, with transitional provisions and a general licence running until 1 January 2027. (GOV.UK)

Established only to February 2023

Shell was physically receiving Yamal LNG cargoes under the Novatek agreement.

The Reuters report attributes that information directly to a Shell spokesperson. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

Not established

It is not established from the public material examined for this file that Shell is physically receiving Yamal LNG cargoes in September 2026.

It is not established how many cargoes Shell received after February 2023.

It is not established where any subsequent cargoes were delivered.

It is not established what revenue, profit or loss Shell derived from the contract after the invasion.

It is not established whether the contract has since been amended.

It is not established that Shell is in breach of British, European or other sanctions.

It is not established that Novatek is in breach of the contract.

It is not established that Shell has commenced arbitration or litigation concerning the agreement.

It is not established what will happen to the contract when the new European and British restrictions reach their January 2027 stage.

Commentary

The importance of this contract lies less in accusation than in chronology.

Shell’s public statement in March 2022 was easily understood as:

Shell is leaving Russian hydrocarbons.

But contracts operate differently from headlines.

Four years later, Shell’s own SEC filing still records a Russian LNG purchase agreement.

That does not demonstrate deception.

It demonstrates how complicated an actual corporate withdrawal can be.

Assets can be sold.

Joint ventures can be abandoned.

Retail businesses can change hands.

Spot purchases can stop immediately.

Long-term contracts are another matter.

They come with counterparties, governing law, contractual remedies and potentially enormous financial consequences if they are broken.

The Novatek agreement appears to be one of the clearest surviving examples of that reality.

The deeper significance

The documentary record now allows a more precise description of Shell’s Russian exit.

Shell did not move from:

Russia

to:

no Russia

on a single date.

Instead, different relationships unwound at different speeds.

Nord Stream 2 ended.

The retail business was sold.

Salym was exited.

Sakhalin operating participation disappeared.

The Sakhalin LNG contract ceased performing and was treated as terminated.

The Gazprom pipeline-gas relationship became litigation.

The old Sakhalin shareholding remained on Shell’s books.

And the Novatek LNG purchase contract survived.

That is the history the annual reports disclose.

The clock is now running toward 2027

There is also a new element that did not exist when this series began reconstructing the post-2022 story.

Governments have now imposed deadlines that may finally overtake the legacy commercial arrangements.

The EU’s date for long-term Russian LNG imports is:

1 January 2027.

British maritime LNG restrictions and current transitional provisions also focus on:

1 January 2027.

Shell’s next annual report should therefore be particularly important.

If the Novatek sentence disappears, changes wording or is accompanied by a termination disclosure, that will be documentary evidence of another stage in Shell’s Russian withdrawal.

Until then, the latest authenticated position is the one Shell itself filed with the SEC:

the long-term Novatek LNG contract still exists.

Source Record

NOVATEK’s original 4 June 2015 announcement records the counterparties, Yamal LNG source, annual volume of approximately 0.9 million tonnes and duration exceeding twenty years. (Novatek)

NOVATEK — Long-term LNG contract with Shell, 4 June 2015

Shell’s 8 March 2022 statement records its intention to withdraw from all Russian hydrocarbons, including LNG, in a phased manner. (Shell)

Shell — Statements concerning withdrawal from Russian oil and gas

Reuters reported on 2 February 2023, citing a Shell spokesperson, that Shell was still receiving cargoes under its long-term Novatek contract. (Pipeline and Gas Journal)

Reuters report — Shell still receiving LNG under Novatek contract

Interfax separately documented Shell’s two remaining Russian LNG contracts and the cessation of Sakhalin deliveries. (Interfax)

Interfax — Shell LNG contract position, 2 February 2023

Shell’s 2025 Form 20-F contains the latest authenticated disclosure located for this file: Shell still holds one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity. (SEC)

SEC — Shell Form 20-F 2025

Shell confirmed that the 2025 Form 20-F was filed on 12 March 2026. (Shell)

Shell — 2025 Form 20-F filing announcement

The UK’s 2022 sanctions notice records the prohibition on Russian LNG imports entering into force on 1 January 2023. (GOV.UK)

UK Government — Russian LNG import prohibition

The Council of the European Union records the new transition timetable under which long-term Russian LNG imports are prohibited from 1 January 2027. (Council of the European Union)

Council of the EU — Ending Russian energy imports

The UK government’s May 2026 guidance records maritime-transport restrictions, the general licence expiring on 1 January 2027, and the separate transitional exception for qualifying pre-17 June 2025 contracts. (GOV.UK)

UK Government — Maritime transportation of Russian LNG

Archive disclaimer: This instalment distinguishes between the continuing existence of a contract and evidence of continuing physical deliveries. Shell’s latest SEC filing establishes the former. The latest explicit public confirmation located of Shell receiving Yamal cargoes dates from February 2023. No allegation of sanctions violation is made. Questions concerning the application of sanctions to individual entities, cargoes or services would require transaction-specific legal analysis.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LV: The Scientist Who Walked Away — Rick Steiner, the Independent Review and the Warnings Shell Faced Before Sakhalin II Became a Global Controversy

The modern Russian legal aftermath has now taken us from:

Shell’s 2022 withdrawal

through:

the confiscated Sakhalin operating interest,

the 94-billion-rouble compensation,

the €1.5-billion Gazprom lawsuit,

the vanished Sakhalin LNG contract,

and finally:

the Novatek agreement that survived.

The next file returns to an earlier part of the chronology.

Long before Putin’s 2022 restructuring, an independent scientist examining Sakhalin II was warning about environmental risk, project governance and what he believed the review process was failing adequately to confront.

His name was:

Rick Steiner.

In January 2005, Steiner supplied additional proposed text to the Independent Scientific Review Panel examining Sakhalin II.

Later that year, after the PA-B tow-out episode, he resigned.

His contemporaneous papers have survived.

Some were recently supplied directly to this archive.

The next instalment asks a different question:

What exactly was Rick Steiner warning about in 2004–2005 — what did the independent review ultimately say, what did it leave out, and how did subsequent events compare with those warnings?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 21, 2026 at 8:57 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 20 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-063 The Sakhalin Papers LIII: The Missing LNG Cargoes — Shell’s Contract Was Supposed to Run Until 2028. Then It “Stood Terminated” Shell entered the Sakhalin LNG business as both shareholder and buyer. Public agreements envisaged long-term deliveries through 2028. After Russia transferred Sakhalin II to a new domestic operator in 2022, Shell stopped receiving the cargoes. In February 2023 it said it was considering its legal options. Its subsequent annual report went further: Shell said the old Sakhalin Energy company had failed to perform, had thereby renounced the LNG purchase contract, and that the contract “stood terminated.” No public record located for this file establishes that Shell has since received compensation for the lost deliveries.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-063
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2022; Shell Form 20-F 2023; Shell Form 20-F 2025
Contemporaneous reporting: Interfax, Reuters, Energy Intelligence and S&P Global
Related legal record: Russian restructuring of Sakhalin II and the continuing Moscow proceedings examined in the previous instalment
Evidence standard: Shell’s characterisation of contractual renunciation is attributed to Shell. It is not presented as a judicial finding. No inference is made that the absence of a publicly identified damages award proves that no confidential arbitration, negotiation or settlement process ever existed.

Introduction

The previous Shell Leaks File dealt with a contract that did not concern Sakhalin LNG.

Russia is currently seeking approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe over disputed pipeline-gas payments from 2022.

This file turns to the other contract.

This one really did concern Sakhalin.

And unlike the pipeline-gas dispute, the public record contains a remarkably clear statement from Shell about what happened to it.

The Sakhalin LNG contract was supposed to continue until 2028.

The cargoes stopped during the third quarter of 2022.

By the following year, Shell’s own annual report said the contract had been renounced through non-performance and:

“stood terminated.” (SEC)

That is a much more consequential statement than merely saying Shell had withdrawn from the Sakhalin II shareholding.

It means the 2022 Russian restructuring severed another commercial relationship that had been expected to survive for years.

1. Shell was not merely a shareholder in Sakhalin II

For much of Sakhalin II’s history, Shell occupied several different positions simultaneously.

It was an investor.

It supplied technology and expertise.

It participated in project governance.

And it was also an LNG buyer.

That purchasing relationship dated back well before commercial LNG production began.

In 2004, Sakhalin Energy and Shell Eastern Trading announced a long-term agreement under which Shell would purchase 37 million tonnes of LNG over twenty years, initially intended principally for the North American market through the Energia Costa Azul terminal in Baja California. Contemporary industry reporting described plateau supply of approximately 1.6 million tonnes per year. (Energy Intelligence)

The commercial structure subsequently evolved.

On 8 April 2009, Gazprom and Royal Dutch Shell announced another package of LNG and gas agreements.

Under those arrangements, Shell Eastern Trading and Gazprom Global LNG were each to purchase approximately:

1 million tonnes of LNG per year

from Sakhalin Energy.

Deliveries were scheduled from 2009 until:

2028

The arrangements also included an equivalent pipeline-gas component for Shell’s European portfolio. (Energy Intelligence)

The precise contractual evolution between the earlier 2004 agreement and the 2009 arrangements is not fully reconstructed from the public documents examined here.

But one point is beyond serious dispute:

Shell possessed a long-term Sakhalin LNG purchasing relationship scheduled to run until 2028.

2. The contract became part of Shell’s global LNG machine

That mattered because Shell does not treat individual LNG cargoes merely as isolated shiploads.

Its LNG business operates as a portfolio.

Shell’s annual reports describe a trading system in which equity production and third-party purchases can be combined, redirected and optimised through a global shipping and terminal network.

A cargo originally associated with one supply source can therefore contribute to obligations or trading opportunities somewhere else.

Shell explains that if a customer does not require a scheduled cargo, the company may redirect it; similarly, if Shell needs another cargo, it can procure one from third parties. (SEC)

The Sakhalin purchase contract therefore represented more than gas physically leaving Prigorodnoye.

It represented a recurring block of LNG within a much larger international trading portfolio.

At the publicly reported plateau rate of approximately one million tonnes per year, several million tonnes of future contracted supply remained when deliveries stopped in 2022.

The precise financial value of those future cargoes cannot responsibly be calculated from the public evidence.

The contract price formula is not before us.

Nor are Shell’s hedging arrangements, destination flexibility, replacement-purchase costs, mitigation measures or any confidential contractual provisions governing termination.

3. Then came the June 2022 presidential decree

On 30 June 2022, President Vladimir Putin issued the decree that fundamentally altered Sakhalin II’s corporate structure.

The existing operator was the Bermuda-incorporated:

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.

Russia created a replacement domestic company:

Sakhalin Energy LLC.

Under the Russian restructuring, the project’s assets, licences, rights, obligations and personnel were transferred into the new company.

Gazprom remained.

Mitsui and Mitsubishi ultimately elected to participate in the replacement structure.

Shell did not. (euronews)

Shell had already announced after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that it intended to exit its Russian ventures and withdraw in a phased manner from Russian hydrocarbons.

But leaving the shareholding and terminating every outstanding commercial contract were not necessarily the same legal act.

That distinction now became critical.

4. Other Sakhalin customers were offered new contracts

The Russian restructuring did not cause Sakhalin II LNG exports generally to cease.

Instead, customers had to deal with the new operator.

Reuters reported in August 2022 that Japanese utilities holding long-term Sakhalin contracts were being offered replacement arrangements by the newly established Russian company. (The Japan Times)

JERA subsequently signed an agreement with the new operator.

Its spokesperson told Reuters that key commercial terms including volume, price and payment currency remained essentially the same as before. (Journal Chrétien – Actualité chrétienne)

Tokyo Gas also entered a long-term contract with Sakhalin Energy LLC.

Mitsui and Mitsubishi remained as shareholders in the new structure. (euronews)

This creates an important comparison.

The project continued.

Japanese buyers continued.

Japanese shareholders continued.

Shell did not.

5. Shell’s cargoes stopped in the third quarter of 2022

The first authenticated Shell record is strikingly terse.

Shell’s 2022 Annual Report and Accounts states that the company still held two long-term LNG offtake contracts with Russian entities.

Then it records:

the counterparty under one contract stopped delivering cargoes during the third quarter of 2022. (Shell)

The report did not identify the counterparty in that sentence.

But the identity soon became clear.

It was Sakhalin.

Interfax reported Shell’s clarification on 2 February 2023.

One Russian LNG contract involved Novatek and Yamal LNG.

The other was the Sakhalin contract running until 2028.

Shell confirmed that it was no longer receiving the cargoes due under the Sakhalin arrangement. (Interfax)

6. Shell initially said it was evaluating its legal options

Shell’s February 2023 statement is important because it captures the company’s position before the later annual-report wording became more definitive.

Shell said that, as it understood the Russian decree, the licences, assets, liabilities and personnel of the old Sakhalin Energy company had been transferred into the new Russian entity.

Shell was no longer receiving the LNG cargoes.

And the company said it was continuing to monitor developments and evaluate what options were available within the legal framework. (Interfax)

That was not yet an announcement of a settlement.

Nor was it an announcement of a damages claim.

It was a reservation of position.

The contractual consequences were still being assessed.

7. Shell’s 2023 annual report went considerably further

Shell’s 2023 Form 20-F later supplied the clearest legal formulation identified for this file.

It said that in February 2023 Shell had concluded that the old Sakhalin Energy Investment Company had:

renounced the long-term LNG purchase contract through failure to perform.

Shell then stated the consequence:

the contract:

“stood terminated.”

(SEC)

That wording deserves care.

It represents Shell’s legal position.

No court judgment located for this instalment independently determines that Sakhalin Energy breached the contract or that Shell’s interpretation of renunciation was legally correct.

But the wording nevertheless establishes something important.

Shell did not regard the Sakhalin LNG agreement as merely suspended.

By its own 2023 reporting, Shell regarded it as terminated.

8. A contract scheduled to survive until 2028 had disappeared five years early

The distinction is substantial.

Industry contract records continued to identify the historical Sakhalin arrangement as approximately 1 million tonnes per year with a 2028 expiry date. S&P Global’s later contract table continued to record Shell on that basis when describing the original Sakhalin II contract portfolio. (S&P Global)

That table should not be interpreted as evidence that Shell was still receiving LNG.

Shell’s own filings say the opposite.

It is useful because it preserves the nominal contractual horizon.

The original commercial arrangement extended to 2028.

Shell says performance ended in 2022 and that the contract was terminated in 2023.

In practical terms, the 2022 restructuring cut across a supply relationship with years still left to run.

9. The physical LNG did not disappear

This is another critical distinction.

The project continued producing LNG.

Gazprom describes Sakhalin II’s Prigorodnoye plant as having two LNG trains with design capacity of approximately 9.6 million tonnes per year. (Gazprom)

Sakhalin Energy had previously produced substantially above that nominal design capacity: more than 11.6 million tonnes in 2020, according to the company’s own reporting. (Gazprom)

And after Shell’s departure, production continued under the Russian operator.

Gazprom was still describing the Sakhalin II LNG plant as successfully operating in October 2024. (Gazprom)

Thus Shell did not lose its contracted cargoes because the LNG facility stopped producing.

The commercial relationship changed while the physical asset continued to operate.

10. The Japanese buyers illustrate what might otherwise be misunderstood

Because Japanese purchasers entered replacement arrangements with the new operator, it would be wrong to describe the 2022 events as a general cancellation of all Sakhalin II sales contracts.

Different counterparties made different choices and faced different circumstances.

Japan regarded Sakhalin II as significant to its energy security.

JERA, Tokyo Gas and other Japanese buyers pursued continuity.

Shell had already committed publicly to withdrawing from Russian hydrocarbons and declined participation in the replacement Russian project company. (S&P Global)

The resulting contractual paths diverged.

That is established.

Why every legal and commercial choice was made behind closed doors is not.

11. Shell’s withdrawal policy did not automatically erase existing contracts

There is an apparent paradox here.

On one hand, Shell announced that it would withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons.

On the other, it complained that Sakhalin LNG cargoes were no longer being delivered.

Those positions are not necessarily inconsistent.

Shell repeatedly distinguished between new or spot Russian purchases and pre-existing long-term contractual obligations.

Its 2022 reporting states that it stopped spot purchases of Russian crude, LNG and refined products while existing contractual relationships were being wound down in accordance with legal obligations and contractual provisions.

The Sakhalin contract therefore had to be legally dealt with.

A corporate policy announcement could not simply rewrite the contract.

Neither could a change in Russian corporate structure necessarily determine its treatment under whatever governing law and dispute-resolution provisions the LNG agreement contained.

Those provisions have not been located publicly for this file.

12. What did Shell actually lose?

At minimum, Shell lost continued performance under a long-term LNG purchase agreement that had been expected to continue until 2028.

Public sources place the later contractual volume at approximately one million tonnes annually. (Energy Intelligence)

But translating that into a damages figure would require information not publicly available.

Among the missing variables are:

the contract pricing formula;

the exact quantity schedule;

destination and diversion rights;

take-or-pay provisions;

force majeure clauses;

sanctions provisions;

termination rights;

replacement cargo costs;

Shell’s hedging position;

and any obligation to mitigate losses.

Accordingly, this archive does not attach a speculative dollar or euro amount to the missing cargoes.

The documentary finding is narrower:

Shell lost contractual LNG supply that was scheduled to continue for years.

13. Did Shell ever obtain compensation?

No publicly identified judgment, arbitral award, settlement announcement or Shell disclosure located for this instalment establishes that Shell subsequently received compensation specifically for the terminated Sakhalin LNG purchase contract.

That absence requires qualification.

International LNG agreements commonly contain confidential dispute-resolution provisions.

Any arbitration could itself be private.

Negotiations could also remain confidential.

The absence of a public record therefore does not prove that Shell never pursued a claim.

What can be said is that Shell’s later published reports do not identify the Sakhalin LNG purchase agreement as an active Russian supply contract.

14. By 2023 only the Novatek contract remained

The contrast in Shell’s own reporting is unusually clear.

At the end of 2022 Shell said it had two long-term Russian LNG purchase contracts.

One was Sakhalin.

The other was a Novatek-linked agreement associated with Yamal LNG. (Shell)

Shell’s 2023 annual report then said the Sakhalin contract had been renounced and terminated.

It added that Shell still held one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity. (SEC)

Shell’s 2024 report repeated the same position.

So did its 2025 Form 20-F, published in March 2026. (SEC)

The accounting trail therefore tells the story almost mechanically:

Two Russian LNG contracts.

Then:

Sakhalin stops performing.

Then:

Sakhalin contract terminated.

Then:

one Russian LNG contract remains.

15. The surviving contract is not Sakhalin

This is important because it prevents another possible confusion.

Shell’s latest reporting still acknowledges a long-term Russian LNG purchase contract.

That does not mean the Sakhalin agreement revived.

The remaining contract is with a Novatek entity.

The original Novatek deal was signed in 2015 and contemplated approximately 900,000 tonnes of LNG annually for more than twenty years from the Yamal LNG project. (LNG Industry)

The Sakhalin purchase contract, by contrast, is no longer identified by Shell as active.

That distinction will matter in the next instalment.

16. The current Moscow lawsuit is about something else

Another distinction is essential.

The continuing Moscow lawsuit examined yesterday seeks approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe for alleged unpaid pipeline gas supplied by Gazprom Export in 2022.

That litigation should not be confused with the missing Sakhalin LNG cargoes.

The Sakhalin LNG purchase agreement concerned liquefied gas supplied from the Russian Far East under a separate commercial relationship.

The Gazprom Export dispute concerned pipeline gas destined for Germany and the post-invasion rouble-payment mechanism.

Russia has subsequently linked the pipeline-gas dispute to money associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin equity interest.

But the public record examined for these files does not show the €1.5 billion claim as damages arising from the missing Sakhalin LNG cargoes. (Interfax.ru)

Keeping those transactions separate is crucial.

Documentary Findings Established

Shell had a long-term commercial relationship under which it purchased LNG produced by Sakhalin II. (Energy Intelligence)

Publicly announced 2009 arrangements contemplated approximately one million tonnes per year being purchased by Shell from Sakhalin Energy through 2028. (Energy Intelligence)

Russia transferred the Sakhalin II operating structure from the Bermuda-incorporated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company to a new Russian entity in 2022. (S&P Global)

Japanese shareholders Mitsui and Mitsubishi entered the replacement company, and several Japanese LNG purchasers entered replacement supply arrangements with the new operator. (euronews)

Shell did not enter the replacement operating company.

Shell’s 2022 Annual Report states that a Russian LNG counterparty stopped delivering cargoes during the third quarter of 2022. (Shell)

Shell subsequently confirmed that the affected contract was the Sakhalin LNG agreement. (Interfax)

In February 2023 Shell said it was monitoring the contract and considering its legal options. (Interfax)

Shell’s 2023 Form 20-F subsequently stated that Sakhalin Energy Investment Company had renounced the LNG purchase contract through non-performance and that the contract stood terminated. (SEC)

Shell’s latest annual reporting identifies only one remaining long-term Russian LNG purchase contract, with a Novatek entity. (SEC)

The Sakhalin II LNG plant continued operating after Shell ceased receiving cargoes. (Gazprom)

Shell’s stated legal position

Shell treated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company’s non-performance as contractual renunciation.

Shell treated the long-term Sakhalin LNG purchase contract as terminated.

Those are authenticated statements of Shell’s position.

They are not substituted here for an independent court or arbitral determination.

Not established

It is not established from the public record examined here that a court or arbitral tribunal found Sakhalin Energy liable to Shell for breach of the LNG purchase contract.

It is not established that Shell received damages or compensation for the undelivered Sakhalin cargoes.

It is not established that Shell received no compensation through any confidential arrangement.

It is not established how many individual cargoes Shell would ultimately have taken between the third quarter of 2022 and the original 2028 contractual expiry.

It is not established what financial value should be attached to those lost deliveries.

It is not established which later Sakhalin cargoes, if any, corresponded physically or commercially to volumes that might otherwise have been supplied to Shell.

And the pending €1.5 billion Moscow claim against Shell Energy Europe concerns a different pipeline-gas relationship and should not be described as litigation over the missing Sakhalin LNG cargoes.

Commentary

The missing cargoes reveal another reason the phrase:

“Shell left Sakhalin in 2022”

is inadequate as history.

Shell had spent decades embedding itself in Sakhalin II.

Its relationship with the project consisted of layers.

Ownership.

Management.

Technology.

Project finance.

LNG production.

Trading.

Long-term purchasing.

Those layers did not disappear simultaneously.

Shell announced its withdrawal from Russian investments in February 2022.

Its significant influence over Sakhalin Energy disappeared shortly afterwards.

Russia transferred the project to a new operating entity.

Shell declined to join it.

But an LNG purchase contract still existed.

Then the cargoes stopped.

Then Shell considered its legal options.

Then Shell formally recorded the contract as renounced and terminated.

That is not a single exit event.

It is an unwinding.

And even four years later, other Russian contractual and legal relationships remain unresolved.

Another archival lesson

The story also demonstrates why annual reports deserve to be read alongside headline news.

The headline in 2022 was:

Shell exits Russia.

The accounts revealed something much more complicated.

Shell still had Russian LNG contracts.

One supplier stopped delivering.

The Sakhalin contract disappeared.

The Novatek contract survived.

A separate Gazprom pipeline-gas dispute later became €1.5 billion litigation.

Shell’s former Sakhalin equity compensation became entangled in that lawsuit.

And the old Bermuda company remains on Shell’s books even though Shell says it no longer possesses Sakhalin II’s operating rights.

None of those details fits comfortably into the simple phrase:

“Shell left.”

That is precisely why the documentary chronology matters.

Source Record

Shell’s Annual Report and Accounts 2022 is the principal authenticated record for the cessation of cargo deliveries. It states that Shell still held two long-term LNG offtake contracts with Russian entities and that one counterparty stopped delivering cargoes during the third quarter of 2022. (Shell)

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2022

The SEC-hosted Shell Form 20-F 2023 contains the clearest later contractual statement: Shell said Sakhalin Energy Investment Company had renounced the long-term LNG purchase contract through non-performance and that the contract stood terminated. It also records that one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity remained. (SEC)

SEC — Shell Form 20-F 2023

Interfax reported Shell’s 2 February 2023 clarification that it was no longer receiving cargoes due under the Sakhalin contract and was evaluating its legal options. (Interfax)

Interfax — Shell says Sakhalin LNG deliveries have ceased, 2 February 2023

Contemporaneous Reuters reporting documents the different route taken by Japanese purchasers and shareholders, several of whom continued under contracts with the replacement Russian operator. (euronews)

Reuters — Russia approves Mitsubishi participation in new Sakhalin II operator

Reuters — Japanese utilities receive replacement Sakhalin contracts

Energy Intelligence’s contemporaneous 8 April 2009 report records the Shell-Gazprom arrangements under which each company was to purchase about one million tonnes annually from Sakhalin Energy from 2009 through 2028. (Energy Intelligence)

Energy Intelligence — Gazprom and Shell sign Sakhalin LNG agreements, 8 April 2009

Gazprom’s current Sakhalin II project record confirms the continuing operation and 9.6 million-tonne design capacity of the Prigorodnoye LNG facility. (Gazprom)

Gazprom — Sakhalin II project record

Shell’s latest authenticated annual report, for 2025, continues to state that Shell has one long-term Russian LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity while retaining its shares in the old Bermuda-incorporated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company. (SEC)

SEC — Shell Form 20-F 2025

Archive disclaimer: Shell’s characterisation of contractual renunciation and termination is attributed to Shell. No publicly identified judgment or arbitral award located for this file independently determines liability under the Sakhalin LNG purchase agreement. The absence of publicly reported compensation is not treated as proof that no confidential claim, negotiation or settlement existed.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LIV: The Russian LNG Contract That Survived — Why Shell Still Lists a Novatek Deal More Than Four Years After Announcing Its Russian Withdrawal

The Sakhalin agreement disappeared.

The other Russian LNG contract did not.

In June 2015, Novatek announced a deal under which Shell International Trading Middle East would purchase approximately:

900,000 tonnes of Yamal LNG every year

for:

more than twenty years.

(LNG Industry)

Shell announced in March 2022 that it intended to withdraw in a phased manner from Russian hydrocarbons.

Yet Shell’s 2025 Annual Report, published in March 2026, still says:

Shell holds one long-term LNG purchase contract with a Novatek entity. (SEC)

That raises the next documentary question:

Why did the Sakhalin LNG contract terminate while the Novatek/Yamal contract survived — and what does “phased withdrawal from Russian hydrocarbons” mean when one of Shell’s Russian LNG agreements may still have more than a decade left to run?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 20 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 20, 2026 at 7:49 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

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 19 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-062 The Sakhalin Papers LII: The Type-C Account — How a 2022 Rouble-Payment Dispute Became a €1.5 Billion Claim Against Shell Russia’s Prosecutor General is seeking approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe over disputed 2022 gas payments — and wants approximately 94 billion roubles set aside for Shell’s Sakhalin compensation used against the claim. The two sums arise from different transactions. Moscow has joined them together in one closed-door lawsuit. Shell says liability remains uncertain. As of July 2026, the next reported hearing was not due until January 2027.

The previous instalment followed the 94.8 billion roubles attached to Shell’s former Sakhalin II interest.

The money did not simply reach Shell.

Instead, approximately 94 billion roubles became trapped inside Russia’s post-2022 financial machinery and subsequently appeared in a lawsuit concerning an entirely different commercial relationship:

pipeline gas supplied by Gazprom Export to Shell Energy Europe for Germany.

That distinction is essential.

The Russian claim now links:

Shell’s withdrawal from Sakhalin II;

a 2022 gas-supply contract;

Russia’s demand that foreign buyers use its new rouble-payment mechanism;

and:

the proceeds associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin interest.

The result is one of the strangest legal afterlives of Shell’s withdrawal from Russia.

1. The dispute began with pipeline gas — not Sakhalin LNG

The €1.5 billion claim now before the Moscow Arbitration Court should not be mistaken for a claim that Shell failed to pay for Sakhalin II LNG.

It concerns a separate contract between Gazprom Export and Shell Energy Europe Limited.

Contemporaneous reporting in 2022 recorded that the contract provided for up to 1.2 billion cubic metres of pipeline gas per year for Germany. (interfax.com)

That contract became caught in the confrontation over Russia’s new gas-payment rules following the invasion of Ukraine.

On 31 March 2022, President Vladimir Putin signed Decree No. 172 establishing a new payment procedure for certain foreign buyers of Russian gas.

Under the Russian mechanism, buyers from designated states were required to use accounts at Gazprombank through which foreign-currency payments would ultimately be converted into roubles. (interfax.com)

Shell did not accept the new requirement.

2. Gazprom cut Shell’s gas supply on 1 June 2022

On 31 May 2022, Gazprom Export said Shell Energy Europe had informed it that the company did not intend to make payment in roubles under the new Russian system.

Gazprom said that, by the payment deadline, it had not received the required rouble payment for gas supplied in April.

It announced that supply would therefore be suspended from 1 June 2022. (interfax.com)

Reuters contemporaneously reported the same event: Gazprom cut Shell Energy’s gas supply into Germany after Shell declined to comply with the rouble-payment demand. (euronews)

This point requires careful wording.

What is established is that:

Gazprom demanded payment under its new rouble mechanism.

Shell declined to adopt that mechanism.

Gazprom said compliant payment had not been received.

Gazprom stopped deliveries.

That does not, by itself, establish that Shell was contractually obliged under the original agreement to adopt Russia’s newly imposed payment system.

That question is part of the dispute.

3. The quarrel then disappeared from public view

For more than two years, the Shell-Gazprom payment dispute attracted comparatively little public attention.

Shell continued its phased withdrawal from Russian hydrocarbons.

Its Sakhalin II interest became subject to the separate restructuring examined in the previous instalments.

Gazprom’s Russian-controlled Sakhalin vehicle ultimately acquired the unclaimed replacement-company interest for 94.8 billion roubles.

Those events appeared to belong to different legal compartments.

One concerned:

gas purchased by Shell Energy Europe for Germany.

The other concerned:

Shell’s former equity position in Sakhalin II.

By 2024, Russia had joined them together.

4. The Prosecutor General filed suit

On 2 October 2024, Russia’s Prosecutor General filed proceedings in the Moscow Arbitration Court against Shell plc and several Shell-group entities.

The public case number is:

A40-241354/2024

The defendants named in public reporting included Shell plc, Shell Energy Europe Limited, several Dutch Shell companies and Shell NefteGaz Development LLC. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Gazprom Export, the Russian Energy Ministry, Sakhalin Energy LLC, the old Sakhalin Energy Investment Company and the Sakhalin regional authorities were among the third parties identified in reporting on the case. (interfax.com)

The Moscow court accepted the proceedings on 11 October 2024. A reproduced court decision identifies the case as Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation v Shell plc and others. (Jus Mundi)

At that point, however, the detailed basis of the claim was not publicly available.

The statement of claim itself was not published in the public case card. (ПРАВО.Ru)

5. Russia initially described damages of more than €1 billion

On 15 October 2024, the Moscow court press service told Interfax that the Prosecutor General was seeking damages exceeding €1 billion.

Contemporaneous reporting noted that the amount was broadly comparable with the rouble value associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin interest. (interfax.com)

But at that stage the precise connection had not been publicly explained.

That explanation would eventually come from Shell itself.

6. The courtroom was closed

On 11 December 2024, the Moscow Arbitration Court ordered that the proceedings be heard behind closed doors.

According to Interfax, most participants supported closed hearings because the case materials contained commercially confidential information.

The Prosecutor General also argued that public disclosure of information from the proceedings could increase sanctions pressure on Russia. (Interfax.ru)

That decision has an obvious consequence for this archive.

There is no complete public evidential record from which an outsider can independently reconstruct the parties’ contractual arguments.

The Shell Leaks Files therefore cannot responsibly declare which side is legally correct.

The available record establishes what each side is alleging.

It does not establish liability.

7. Shell eventually disclosed what Russia was seeking

The most important public description came from Shell’s own annual reporting.

Shell’s 2024 Form 20-F stated that the Russian prosecutor sought three principal forms of relief.

First, declarations that Shell had acted unlawfully in withdrawing support from Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

Second, approximately:

€1.5 billion

from Shell Energy Europe Limited to Gazprom Export for alleged unpaid gas deliveries during 2022.

Third, permission for Gazprom Export to take approximately:

94 billion roubles

purportedly reserved for Shell as Sakhalin equity compensation in a Type-C account, and apply that amount against part of the alleged Shell Energy Europe debt. (SEC)

That disclosure transformed the understanding of the case.

The Sakhalin compensation and the German gas-supply dispute had become legally connected.

8. Two separate commercial relationships were being joined together

This is the central documentary point.

The €1.5 billion claim relates to alleged non-payment for gas under the Gazprom Export–Shell Energy Europe relationship.

The 94 billion roubles relates to compensation associated with Shell’s former Sakhalin position.

They are not the same transaction.

Russia’s case seeks to connect them through set-off.

In simplified terms, the prosecutorial position described by Shell is:

Shell Energy Europe allegedly owes Gazprom Export money.

Money is allegedly being held for Shell arising from Sakhalin.

Russia wants the Sakhalin money applied against the alleged gas debt.

That is the connection.

9. What is a Type-C account?

Type-C accounts became an important part of Russia’s financial response to Western sanctions after the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

They are special rouble accounts used in certain circumstances to fulfil obligations to creditors associated with states Russia categorises as “unfriendly”.

The account structure can mean that an obligation is treated as paid within the Russian system even though the foreign creditor cannot freely repatriate or use the funds in the manner normally expected in an international commercial transaction. (lidings.com)

For Shell, however, one qualification is particularly important.

Shell’s annual report does not simply state as an uncontested fact that 94 billion roubles belongs to Shell.

It describes the money as approximately 94 billion roubles “purportedly set aside” for Shell’s Sakhalin equity compensation. (SEC)

That wording preserves Shell’s legal position.

So should this archive.

10. Shell sought postponements

The litigation did not move rapidly towards judgment.

Shell’s 2024 Form 20-F recorded that Shell Energy Europe filed a written postponement motion on 30 January 2025.

Following a hearing on 14 February 2025, the case was postponed until 14 April. (SEC)

Further delays followed.

On 14 April 2025, the court adjourned proceedings until 11 June. (Interfax.ru)

On 11 June, the next hearing was fixed for 25 August. (Interfax.ru)

On 25 August, another postponement took the case to 26 November.

Interfax reported that Shell Energy Europe had again sought an adjournment and that the prosecutor had submitted further written explanations. (Interfax.ru)

The repeated adjournments show that this was not being disposed of summarily.

11. Shell’s latest annual report still records no resolution

Shell’s 2025 Annual Report and Accounts, published on 12 March 2026, provides the most recent authenticated Shell description located for this instalment.

The language is notably cautious.

Shell again states that the prosecutor seeks:

approximately €1.5 billion;

access to approximately 94 billion roubles of alleged Sakhalin compensation;

and declarations concerning Shell’s conduct in relation to Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

Then comes the critical sentence:

“The proceedings are ongoing.” (SEC)

Shell further says that it cannot reliably estimate either the magnitude or timing of any possible obligation or payment, or even whether payment will ultimately be due.

The company records a high degree of uncertainty over the outcome and its possible effects. (SEC)

That is Shell’s own audited reporting position.

12. The case is now reported to extend into 2027

There is a more recent procedural development.

A report dated 8 July 2026, citing the Moscow Arbitration Court case file, states that the next continuation of the proceedings is scheduled for:

18 January 2027

The reported claim remains €1.5 billion. (https://x-compliance.ru)

That means that, as of the latest public procedural information located for this file, the litigation remains unresolved more than two years after the Prosecutor General first filed suit.

No final Russian judgment has been identified for this instalment.

Accordingly, the archive treats the allegations as pending.

13. The 2022 gas dispute deserves particular care

The Russian claim is often summarised as being for “unpaid gas.”

That shorthand risks obscuring the contractual dispute.

Contemporaneous reporting establishes that Gazprom demanded compliance with a payment mechanism introduced by Russian presidential decree after the original gas relationship was already operating.

Gazprom said Shell refused to pay in roubles.

Shell did not accept the new payment terms.

Gazprom then halted supplies. (interfax.com)

The later Russian prosecutor describes sums as unpaid.

But the public record available here does not contain the full gas contract, the payment clauses, the parties’ contractual notices, or the evidence being considered in the closed Moscow proceedings.

It would therefore be improper to convert the Russian allegation into an established debt.

14. The same caution applies to Russia’s allegation that Shell “abandoned” Sakhalin

Shell announced in 2022 that it intended to withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Russia subsequently restructured Sakhalin II under presidential decree.

Shell declined to take an interest in the newly created Russian operator.

Mitsui and Mitsubishi remained.

The Russian prosecutor now seeks declarations concerning what Shell’s annual report describes as alleged unlawful abandonment of support for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company. (SEC)

That allegation forms part of the pending proceedings.

It has not been established by a final judgment located for this instalment.

15. Yet Shell has not entirely disappeared from the old corporate structure

Shell’s 2025 annual report continues to state that the company holds a 27.5% minus one share interest in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd, the old Bermuda-incorporated company. (SEC)

As previous instalments have documented, Russia transferred the operational rights and obligations into a new Russian company.

Shell did not join that company.

The result is an extraordinary corporate split:

Shell retains shares in the predecessor entity;

the operating project is controlled through the Russian successor;

the economic value associated with Shell’s former operating interest was priced at 94.8 billion roubles;

and Russia now wants approximately that compensation pool applied against a separate gas claim.

16. What the case does not establish

The litigation does not currently establish that Shell owes Gazprom Export €1.5 billion.

It does not establish that the 94 billion roubles is freely available property of Shell.

It does not establish that Russia’s post-2022 rouble-payment mechanism was contractually binding upon Shell Energy Europe under the pre-existing agreement.

It does not establish that Shell’s decision not to participate in the replacement Sakhalin operator was unlawful.

And it does not establish that Gazprom Export is ultimately entitled to set one claim against the other.

Those are precisely the matters that remain contested.

Documentary Findings

Established: Shell Energy Europe had a Gazprom Export contract for up to 1.2 billion cubic metres of gas annually for Germany. (interfax.com)

Established: In May 2022, Shell Energy Europe informed Gazprom Export that it would not adopt the new rouble-payment arrangement demanded under Russian Presidential Decree No. 172. (interfax.com)

Established: Gazprom suspended supplies from 1 June 2022 after stating that the required rouble payment had not been received. (interfax.com)

Established: Russia’s Prosecutor General filed Moscow proceedings against Shell-group entities on 2 October 2024 under Case No. A40-241354/2024. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Established: The proceedings were placed behind closed doors in December 2024. (Interfax.ru)

Established: Shell says the prosecutor seeks approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe for alleged unpaid 2022 gas deliveries. (SEC)

Established: Shell says the prosecutor also seeks authority for Gazprom Export to take approximately 94 billion roubles purportedly reserved for Shell’s Sakhalin equity compensation from a Type-C account and apply it against part of the alleged debt. (SEC)

Established: Shell’s 2025 Annual Report, published on 12 March 2026, describes the case as ongoing and says the company cannot reliably estimate any eventual payment obligation. (SEC)

Established: Public procedural reporting dated 8 July 2026 states that the next continuation of the proceedings is scheduled for 18 January 2027. (https://x-compliance.ru)

Alleged: That Shell Energy Europe owes approximately €1.5 billion for unpaid gas.

Alleged: That Shell unlawfully withdrew support from Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

Not established: That Shell is ultimately liable for either allegation.

Not established: That Gazprom Export is entitled to the 94 billion-rouble compensation pool.

Not established: That the Type-C funds will ever be freely recoverable by Shell.

Commentary

The most revealing feature of this case is not simply its size.

It is the way separate strands of Shell’s Russian exit have become entangled.

A gas-purchase contract for Germany.

A presidential decree changing the currency-payment mechanism.

Shell’s refusal to adopt that mechanism.

Gazprom’s suspension of supply.

Shell’s withdrawal from Sakhalin.

Russia’s transfer of the project to a new operator.

The 94.8 billion-rouble valuation of Shell’s former interest.

A restricted Type-C account.

Then a Prosecutor General’s lawsuit attempting to connect them.

Four years after Shell announced that it would withdraw from Russian hydrocarbons, the company’s Russian relationship is still generating unresolved legal consequences.

That is the point the official record now establishes.

Leaving the country commercially did not mean leaving its legal system behind.

The evidential limitation matters

There is also a larger archival lesson.

The Moscow case is closed to the public.

The full pleadings are not publicly available.

The underlying contracts are not before us.

The court has not issued a publicly identified final judgment.

In those circumstances, certainty would be manufactured.

The proper documentary approach is narrower:

record what Russia alleges;

record what Shell says;

record what the contemporaneous evidence shows;

record the procedural history;

and stop where the evidence stops.

That discipline is especially important when the dispute sits at the intersection of sanctions, war, energy security and state-controlled companies.

Source Record

Shell’s latest authenticated description appears in its 2025 Annual Report and Accounts, published 12 March 2026. It states that the Moscow proceedings remain ongoing, identifies the €1.5 billion claim and the attempted use of approximately 94 billion roubles from a Type-C account, and records Shell’s inability to estimate the eventual financial outcome. (SEC)

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025

The SEC-hosted Shell filing provides the same authenticated disclosure.

SEC — Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025

The original Moscow case is publicly identified as A40-241354/2024. Pravo reported the filing and noted that the statement of claim itself was not available in the public case card. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Pravo — Prosecutor files case against Shell

The Moscow court’s 11 October 2024 decision accepting the case is reproduced by Jus Mundi. (Jus Mundi)

Jus Mundi — Prosecutor-General’s Office v Shell

Interfax recorded the December 2024 decision to close the proceedings to the public and the repeated 2025 adjournments. (Interfax.ru)

Interfax — Court orders closed hearing, 11 December 2024

Interfax — Hearing moved to 11 June 2025

Interfax — Hearing moved to 25 August 2025

Interfax — Hearing moved to 26 November 2025

The 2022 gas-payment dispute was documented contemporaneously by Gazprom statements carried by Interfax and Reuters reporting. (interfax.com)

Interfax — Gazprom halts gas supplies to Shell, 1 June 2022

Reuters report — Gazprom cuts Shell Energy supply, 1 June 2022

The latest procedural report located for this instalment, dated 8 July 2026 and citing the court docket, states that the next hearing is scheduled for 18 January 2027. (https://x-compliance.ru)

X-Compliance — Shell hearing continued to January 2027

Archive disclaimer: Russian prosecutorial allegations are identified as allegations. Shell’s descriptions of the case are attributed to Shell. The absence of public pleadings and the closed nature of the Moscow proceedings prevent an independent assessment of the full contractual evidence. This instalment therefore makes no finding that Shell owes the sums claimed, that Russia’s rouble-payment mechanism governed the original contract, or that Gazprom Export is legally entitled to Shell’s Sakhalin compensation.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LIII: The Missing LNG Cargoes — Shell Had a Sakhalin Contract Running to 2028. Then the Deliveries Stopped

There is another contract in the Sakhalin story.

This one did concern LNG.

Shell disclosed that it had a long-term agreement with the old Sakhalin Energy company that was due to run until 2028.

After Russia transferred the project into the replacement Russian operator, Shell said it stopped receiving cargoes due under that contract.

By February 2023, Shell was publicly saying that it was monitoring developments and evaluating its legal options. (interfax.com)

The next file follows those missing cargoes:

What exactly did Shell lose when Sakhalin LNG stopped arriving, what contractual rights survived the Russian restructuring, and did Shell ever obtain compensation for supplies that were supposed to continue for years after its departure?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 19 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 19, 2026 at 9:47 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

When Shell first put its longstanding Woodcreek headquarters campus in Houston on the market, the broad outline was already striking.

The company was seeking roughly $325 million for a campus of almost 1.5 million square feet while planning to lease back only a little more than half of it on a long-term basis. More than 700,000 square feet appeared destined to be released over time. (Houston Chronicle)

The latest investment-marketing material now fills in much more of the picture.

And the detail makes clear that this is not just a property sale.

It is a carefully structured reduction in Shell’s long-term U.S. office footprint.

Exactly how much Woodcreek does Shell intend to keep?

According to the current listing for the Woodcreek campus, Shell USA intends to take a 15-year lease on 780,161 square feet, representing 53% of the campus’s net rentable area. (LoopNet)

That long-term space consists of:

• 100% of Building E;
• 100% of Building F;
• and one floor of Building A.

At the same time, Shell would take only a three-year master lease on the remaining floors of Building A and all of Buildings B, C and D. (LoopNet)

That confirms the significance of the structure first reported in August.

Shell is not abandoning the rest of Woodcreek immediately.

Instead, the transaction appears designed to give the new owner three years of Shell-backed rental income while Shell progressively exits the balance of the campus.

The distinction matters.

The 15-year component represents the headquarters footprint Shell appears prepared to retain.

The three-year component looks much more like transition space.

Shell’s long-term rent would start at about half market level

The financial structure is particularly revealing.

The investment listing says Shell’s 15-year lease would begin at $18.50 net per square foot, described as approximately 50% of market rent, with annual increases of 3%. (LoopNet)

The shorter three-year lease covering the space Shell is expected eventually to vacate would instead begin at market rent, also with 3% annual increases. (LoopNet)

In other words, the prospective buyer is being offered two quite different income streams.

For three years, Shell would continue paying market rent on the larger temporary footprint.

For the core space Shell intends to retain for 15 years, the starting rent would be materially below prevailing market levels.

The marketing material explicitly says that the long-term leaseback is being structured at a fraction of market rent in order to reduce Shell’s occupancy costs. (LoopNet)

That is an important addition to the story.

Shell is not simply monetising a real-estate asset.

It is also apparently using the transaction to reset its future occupancy costs substantially lower.

$345.7 million of lease income

The numbers attached to the lease structure are substantial.

Excluding expense reimbursements, the marketing material says Shell’s structured leases would produce approximately $345.7 million in net operating income, of which around $116.3 million would be paid during the first three years. (LoopNet)

That helps explain the attraction to a potential buyer.

The purchaser would acquire a large Houston corporate campus backed initially by Shell rental income across the entire property, while having three years to reposition, re-lease or redevelop the space Shell ultimately intends to vacate.

From Shell’s perspective, the logic runs in the opposite direction.

The company receives the proceeds from selling the property, reduces its permanent physical footprint and locks in a long-term rental rate on its retained headquarters space that is being marketed as roughly half of market.

That is a much more sophisticated transaction than a straightforward headquarters sale.

Still no buyer — and no confirmed sale price

One important question remains unanswered.

There is still no publicly identified buyer for Woodcreek and no confirmed final transaction price.

The figure of approximately $325 million remains the reported marketing level, not evidence of a completed deal. (Houston Chronicle)

That distinction should be maintained until a sale actually closes.

A prospective price and an achieved sale price are not the same thing.

It will therefore be worth watching whether the property ultimately sells near the $325 million figure, whether the lease terms change during negotiations, or whether Shell modifies the amount of space it intends to retain.

Jiffy Lube is already leaving Woodcreek

There is another concrete development.

On 17 September 2026, REBusinessOnline reported that Jiffy Lube has signed a 28,000-square-foot headquarters lease at Westway Plaza in West Houston and is relocating from the Shell Woodcreek campus. (REBusinessOnline)

That move comes after Shell agreed to sell Jiffy Lube to Monomoy Capital Partners.

The relocation is comparatively small beside the scale of Woodcreek as a whole, but it is nevertheless another visible example of activity leaving the campus.

And it reinforces the broader point.

Woodcreek is already beginning to function less like a single, permanently consolidated Shell corporate campus and more like a property in transition.

Aberdeen: still no numbers

The contrast with Aberdeen is interesting.

Shell confirmed in August that certain development, subsurface and wells roles would move from Aberdeen to London in 2027 as part of changes to its global upstream organisation. (Press and Journal)

Shell said the majority of the affected roles support its global operations rather than UK operations based in Aberdeen. (Press and Journal)

But nearly a month later, the central numerical questions remain unanswered.

Shell has still not publicly disclosed:

the number of employees expected to relocate;

the number who may decline to move;

whether any redundancies will ultimately result;

or whether further functions will be transferred from Aberdeen.

BBC reporting likewise noted that Shell had not disclosed the number of jobs involved. (BBC Mirror)

So the Aberdeen story remains important, but presently unchanged in evidential terms.

Woodcreek, by contrast, has become considerably clearer.

A wider pattern in Shell’s corporate geography

Taken together, Woodcreek and Aberdeen illustrate something broader about the modern Shell organisation.

The company is concentrating people and functions into fewer hubs.

In Aberdeen, certain global technical roles are being moved to London.

In Houston, Shell is seeking to sell its historic headquarters campus and retain only 53% of it on a long-term basis.

The remaining Woodcreek space would be covered by Shell for just three years before becoming available to the purchaser for other uses. (LoopNet)

Shell describes these kinds of changes in terms of efficiency, collaboration, competitiveness and optimising its real-estate footprint.

Those descriptions may all be accurate.

But the physical consequences are equally clear.

Shell is reducing the amount of office space it intends to occupy permanently.

In Houston, we can now put a precise number on it:

780,161 square feet retained long term.

Everything else is transitional.

And if the proposed Woodcreek transaction completes on the advertised terms, Shell will have achieved something else at the same time: converting a large owned headquarters campus into cash while securing its retained U.S. headquarters space at a starting rent marketed at roughly half the prevailing market level.

That makes Woodcreek one of the more revealing examples yet of Shell’s continuing effort to shrink, consolidate and financially restructure its corporate office footprint.

Shell’s Woodcreek Retreat Comes Into Sharper Focus: 780,161 Sq Ft Retained, Three-Year Exit for the Rest was first posted on September 19, 2026 at 9:27 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 18 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-061 The Sakhalin Papers LI: The Billion-Rouble Exit Price — Novatek, Gazprom and the US$1 Billion Shell Still Could Not Simply Collect In April 2023, the Russian government put a precise price on the 27.5% Sakhalin II interest Shell had declined to take in the replacement Russian operator: 94.8 billion roubles. Novatek was approved as purchaser. Shell’s response was immediate — no money had been received and its legal rights remained intact. Eleven months later, Moscow cancelled the Novatek arrangement and substituted a Gazprom-owned company at exactly the same price. The stake changed hands. The cash did not simply pass to Shell. By 2024, the 94 billion-rouble pot had become entangled with restricted-account rules and a much larger Russian claim against Shell. The corporate exit announced in February 2022 had become a battle over who was entitled to the exit proceeds. 1. A price finally appeared

The previous instalment followed Shell out of the operating Sakhalin II project.

By April 2023, Moscow had reached the next stage.

Russian Government Order No. 890-r, dated 11 April 2023, approved the sale of the unclaimed 27.49999998621683%interest in the new Sakhalin Energy LLC for:

94.8 billion roubles

and designated Novatek Moscow Region LLC as purchaser. Interfax reported that the order had been published through Russia’s official legal-information system. (Interfax)

At the exchange rate quoted in contemporaneous Reuters reporting, that amounted to approximately US$1.16 billion. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

The precision of the Russian order is striking.

Not simply “about 27.5%.”

Not simply “approximately 95 billion roubles.”

The legal instrument identified the interest to fourteen decimal places and fixed the price at 94.8 billion roubles.

But fixing a price was not the same thing as paying Shell.

2. This was not a conventional Shell sale

The legal structure needs to remain clear.

Shell had not negotiated with Novatek and signed an ordinary share-purchase agreement transferring its original Bermuda-incorporated Sakhalin Energy shares.

Following President Vladimir Putin’s June 2022 decree, the operating rights and obligations of the old Sakhalin Energy Investment Company had been moved, under Russian law, into a newly created Russian company.

Mitsui and Mitsubishi elected to participate in that company.

Shell did not. (Interfax)

The 27.5% interest being allocated by Moscow in 2023 was therefore an unclaimed interest in the replacement Russian operator.

That distinction matters because Shell has continued to state that it retains legal rights connected with its 27.5% minus one share interest in the original Bermuda company. (BOE Report)

The Russian state was arranging disposition of the new Russian-company interest.

Shell was preserving its legal position concerning the old one.

Those were related, but not identical, propositions.

3. Novatek appeared to have won

Novatek had publicly expressed interest in acquiring the interest.

The Russian government then approved it as buyer at the 94.8 billion-rouble valuation. (Interfax)

Contemporaneous Reuters reporting described the transaction straightforwardly as Moscow approving the sale of Shell’s former 27.5% stake in Sakhalin II to Novatek. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

From outside, the sequence appeared simple:

Shell had left.

Russia had valued the interest.

Novatek would buy it.

Shell would receive compensation.

But almost immediately, Shell inserted an important qualification.

4. Shell: “No payments have been made”

On 4 May 2023, Shell Chief Financial Officer Sinead Gorman was asked about reports that the Sakhalin interest had been sold to Novatek.

Her answer was concise:

“No payments have been made and we retain our legal rights.”

Interfax recorded Gorman emphasising that Shell was aware of Russian press reports but had not received the proceeds. (Interfax)

That sentence is one of the key documentary markers in Shell’s Russian withdrawal.

Moscow had selected a purchaser.

Moscow had fixed a price.

Russian media were discussing the foreign-exchange consequences of transferring nearly 95 billion roubles.

Yet Shell said it had received nothing.

The difference between a government-approved disposition and a completed payment was already becoming apparent.

5. Russian rules contained another obstacle

The Russian mechanism did not simply say:

buyer pays 94.8 billion roubles;

Shell receives 94.8 billion roubles.

Interfax reported that foreign partners could receive proceeds only after determining and offsetting compensation for alleged damage connected with implementation of the project. (Interfax)

That qualification descended directly from the special legal machinery imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent rupture with Western companies.

In other words, the 94.8 billion roubles represented a valuation and sale price.

It did not necessarily represent an unconditional debt immediately payable to Shell.

That difference would later become crucial.

6. The money briefly became a foreign-exchange story

During April 2023, Russian reporting even linked the proposed Shell payment with movements in the rouble.

The suggestion was that conversion and repatriation of nearly 95 billion roubles could create significant demand for foreign currency.

Russian officials pushed back against exaggerated interpretations.

Interfax reported Deputy Finance Minister Alexei Moiseyev pointing out that large foreign-exchange transactions connected with corporate exits were subject to restrictions imposed by the Central Bank. (Interfax)

This episode illustrates how real the expected payment appeared at the time.

Markets were discussing how Shell might convert the money.

Shell was saying it had not received it.

7. The Novatek deal then stalled

The expected transaction did not proceed to the straightforward conclusion implied by the April 2023 order.

Almost a year passed.

Then Moscow changed the buyer.

On 23 March 2024, the Russian government issued Order No. 701-r.

The Novatek order was declared invalid.

In its place, the government approved Sakhalin Project LLC as purchaser. (Interfax)

Sakhalin Project was part of the Gazprom group.

And the price?

Exactly the same:

94.8 billion roubles

There was no newly negotiated valuation.

The state changed the buyer.

The figure survived unchanged.

8. Moscow gave no public explanation for replacing Novatek

Reuters reported that the Russian government nullified the year-old decision to sell the interest to Novatek without explaining why. (Business Standard)

Interfax likewise recorded that Gazprom had replaced Novatek as purchaser and that the April 2023 order was no longer valid. (Interfax)

The archive therefore should not invent an explanation.

It is possible to speculate about commercial, political or legal reasons.

There is no need.

The documentary fact is sufficient:

Novatek was approved in April 2023.

The Novatek transaction did not move forward.

Gazprom’s vehicle replaced it in March 2024.

The 94.8 billion-rouble price remained unchanged.

Anything beyond that requires evidence.

9. Gazprom ended up controlling nearly 78%

Before the restructuring, Gazprom had held just over 50% of Sakhalin Energy.

Mitsui retained 12.5%.

Mitsubishi retained 10%.

The acquisition of the former Shell allocation took Gazprom’s effective interest in the replacement operator to approximately 77.5%. (Interfax)

The ownership transformation was therefore substantial.

Shell, which had once led development of Sakhalin II, was outside the Russian operating company.

Gazprom now exercised overwhelming control.

The Japanese partners remained.

The project itself continued producing LNG.

But Shell’s financial rights connected with the exit were still unresolved.

10. Shell again reserved its rights

When Reuters reported the Gazprom transaction in March 2024, Shell did not describe the matter as a normal completed sale from which it had received the purchase price.

Its statement was carefully worded.

Shell said it could not comment on matters relating to the Russian government decree process and added that it reserved all legal rights relating to its 27.5% minus one share interest in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd. (BOE Report)

This language is significant.

Shell was not accepting the proposition that Moscow’s disposal of the replacement-company interest had extinguished every right Shell associated with its original investment.

Nor did Shell publicly acknowledge receipt of the 94.8 billion roubles.

The legal position had become layered:

Russia had transferred the project into a Russian entity.

Shell had refused to join it.

Russia had valued the unclaimed interest.

Russia had designated Novatek.

Russia had cancelled Novatek.

Russia had designated a Gazprom company.

Gazprom had acquired the interest.

Shell continued reserving its rights.

That is not a conventional divestment.

11. The dollar value changed even though the rouble figure did not

There is an instructive detail in the contemporaneous reporting.

When Novatek was approved in April 2023, Reuters valued 94.8 billion roubles at approximately US$1.16 billion. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

When the Gazprom-controlled buyer was approved in March 2024, Reuters valued the same 94.8 billion roubles at approximately US$1.02 billion. (Business Standard)

Nothing had changed in the Russian government’s nominal valuation.

The exchange rate had.

That is another reminder that even if Shell ultimately became entitled to the full rouble amount, the value of the compensation in Shell’s reporting currency was not fixed.

Time itself was changing the economics.

12. Gazprom’s accounting tells another part of the story

The Russian buyer did not subsequently account for the Sakhalin interest as though 94.8 billion roubles represented the full economic value of what it obtained.

Gazprom’s financial reporting later recognised a very large gain associated with increasing its Sakhalin II interest.

Bloomberg reported that Gazprom provisionally recognised a gain of approximately 167.4 billion roubles in the first half of 2024 after purchasing Shell’s former 27.5% allocation. (The Star)

Later reporting said that figure was revised upward.

The accounting point is important but should not be overstated.

A bargain-purchase gain does not prove that Russia deliberately cheated Shell or establish what Shell would have obtained in an unrestricted arm’s-length sale.

Accounting fair-value measurements and politically constrained exit prices are not the same thing.

What it does establish is that Gazprom itself recognised an economic value from the acquisition materially greater than the cash price it paid.

13. The 94.8 billion roubles did not disappear

By October 2024, the compensation figure reappeared in an entirely different context.

Russia’s Prosecutor General brought proceedings against eight Shell-group entities.

Interfax reported that the Russian claim was approximately comparable in scale to the 94.8 billion roubles paid for the Sakhalin interest. (Interfax)

Shell’s own SEC filing later explained the position much more precisely.

According to Shell, the Russian prosecutor seeks a declaration allowing Gazprom Export to take approximately 94 billion roubles purportedly set aside for Shell for Sakhalin equity compensation from a Type-C account, and to offset that money against part of an alleged debt owed by Shell Energy Europe to Gazprom Export. (SEC)

The money had therefore travelled conceptually through several stages:

a valuation;

a proposed Novatek acquisition;

a Gazprom acquisition;

a restricted compensation pot;

and finally a potential litigation set-off.

Shell still had not simply collected the exit price.

14. The separate Russian claim is much larger

The 94 billion-rouble fund is only one component of the current dispute.

Shell’s latest annual reporting states that the Russian prosecutor also seeks approximately:

€1.5 billion

from Shell Energy Europe Limited for alleged unpaid gas deliveries during 2022. (Shell)

The prosecutor also seeks declarations concerning what it characterises as Shell’s unlawful abandonment of support for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

These are allegations.

They are not findings of liability.

That distinction is particularly important because the Russian proceedings remain unresolved in Shell’s latest authenticated annual report. (Shell)

15. The Sakhalin compensation became collateral in another dispute

This is perhaps the most revealing development in the entire exit-price saga.

The 94.8 billion roubles originally looked like compensation for an asset Shell could no longer operate.

By late 2024, Russia was seeking to use approximately that same pool of money to satisfy part of an entirely different alleged obligation.

A compensation mechanism had become a litigation asset.

That is why describing the March 2024 transaction simply as:

“Gazprom bought Shell’s Sakhalin stake for US$1 billion”

is incomplete.

Gazprom did acquire the replacement-company interest for that price.

But the documentary record does not show Shell simply receiving an unrestricted US$1 billion equivalent.

Shell’s own latest disclosures say the compensation is caught inside the dispute.

16. Shell still owns shares — but not the operating project

There is another apparent paradox.

Shell’s latest reporting continues to identify its 27.5% minus one share interest in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd, the Bermuda-incorporated predecessor entity.

At the same time, Shell notes that this company purportedly no longer holds the licences, rights and obligations associated with Sakhalin II. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

This is why phrases such as “Shell sold its Sakhalin stake to Gazprom” require qualification.

Economically, Gazprom acquired the 27.5% allocation in the new Russian operating company corresponding to Shell’s former position.

Legally, Shell continues to preserve rights connected with shares in the predecessor company.

The operating interest and the original corporate interest are no longer the same thing.

17. The project itself continued

None of this stopped Sakhalin II from producing LNG.

Interfax reported production of approximately 11.5 million tonnes of LNG in 2022. (Interfax)

Reuters later reported that production exceeded 10 million tonnes in 2023, with cargoes continuing to move principally to Asian destinations including Japan, South Korea and China. (BOE Report)

This is another important part of the story.

Shell withdrew.

The corporate vehicle changed.

Ownership changed.

The dispute over compensation persisted.

But the physical asset kept producing.

The project Shell had spent decades building did not disappear with Shell’s exit.

Its economic life continued under a different ownership structure.

18. The Japanese shareholders demonstrate the alternative path

Mitsui and Mitsubishi chose a different course.

They accepted interests in the replacement Russian company.

That decision preserved their direct participation in the operating project.

Shell chose not to.

There were obvious political, sanctions, governance and corporate-policy reasons for Shell’s withdrawal after Russia invaded Ukraine.

This archive does not suggest that remaining would necessarily have been preferable.

The comparison matters for another reason.

It shows that the subsequent compensation dispute was not an unavoidable consequence for every foreign shareholder.

It followed from Shell’s decision not to enter the replacement corporate structure and Russia’s imposed mechanism for disposing of the resulting unclaimed interest. (Interfax)

19. Was 94.8 billion roubles a fair price?

The documentary record does not permit a definitive answer.

Russia determined the valuation under a state-created mechanism after fundamentally restructuring the project.

The sale was not an unrestricted international auction.

Shell did not negotiate the transaction as seller in an ordinary commercial process.

Gazprom later recorded a substantial accounting gain from acquiring the additional interest. (The Star)

Those facts provide context.

They do not establish what an arm’s-length market price would have been.

Accordingly:

Established: Russia fixed the interest’s sale price at 94.8 billion roubles.

Established: Novatek was initially selected.

Established: Gazprom’s vehicle eventually acquired the interest at the same price.

Established: Gazprom subsequently recognised a substantial accounting gain associated with increasing its Sakhalin interest.

Not established: that 94.8 billion roubles represented fair market value.

Not established: that Shell was legally entitled to receive that full amount free of offsets or restrictions.

Not established: that Gazprom’s accounting gain measures any loss legally recoverable by Shell.

20. Shell’s latest position: uncertainty

The most recent authenticated Shell position is contained in its 2025 Annual Report and Accounts, published in March 2026.

Shell states that the Russian proceedings remain ongoing.

It says that the magnitude and timing of any possible obligations or payments cannot presently be estimated reliably.

It also describes a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome and potential effects on future operations, earnings, cash flow and financial condition. (Shell)

Four and a half years after Shell announced its intention to leave Sakhalin II, that is where the documentary record stands.

Not with a clean closing statement.

Not with a confirmed payment.

But with:

an old Bermuda shareholding;

a Russian operating company Shell did not join;

a 94.8 billion-rouble acquisition price paid by a Gazprom entity;

a restricted compensation account;

and unresolved Moscow litigation.

Documentary Findings

Established: Russian Government Order No. 890-r of 11 April 2023 fixed the sale price of the unclaimed 27.5% Sakhalin Energy LLC interest at 94.8 billion roubles and selected Novatek Moscow Region LLC as purchaser. (Interfax)

Established: In May 2023, Shell CFO Sinead Gorman said Shell had received no payment and retained its legal rights. (Interfax)

Established: The Novatek transaction did not proceed as originally contemplated.

Established: Russian Government Order No. 701-r of 23 March 2024 replaced Novatek with Gazprom-controlled Sakhalin Project LLC while retaining the 94.8 billion-rouble price. (Interfax)

Established: Reuters reported the Gazprom entity’s acquisition of the 27.5% interest for approximately US$1 billion in March 2024. (Business Standard)

Established: Shell responded that it reserved all legal rights associated with its interest in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd. (BOE Report)

Established: Shell’s latest annual reporting says approximately 94 billion roubles purportedly set aside for Shell’s Sakhalin equity compensation is held in a Type-C account and is now the subject of a Russian request for set-off against an alleged debt. (Shell)

Established: The same Russian proceedings seek approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe for alleged unpaid 2022 gas deliveries. (Shell)

Alleged: The Russian prosecutor’s assertions concerning Shell’s conduct and unpaid gas obligations remain allegations in pending litigation.

Not established: that Shell has received the 94.8 billion roubles.

Not established: that Russia’s valuation represented unrestricted fair-market value.

Not established: that Shell will ultimately recover the compensation or be liable for the claims now asserted against it.

Commentary

Shell’s Sakhalin exit is a useful demonstration of the difference between leaving an asset operationally and leaving it legally.

Operationally, Shell was gone quickly.

Its directors resigned.

Its personnel were withdrawn.

Its influence disappeared.

The Russian state transferred the project into a replacement company.

But ownership rights, compensation rights, LNG-contract disputes and alleged gas-payment liabilities survived.

The 94.8 billion-rouble figure became the thread connecting all of them.

First it was an exit valuation.

Then it was Novatek’s purchase price.

Then Gazprom’s.

Then a compensation pool.

Now Russia wants to use that same pool against Shell in litigation.

A neat corporate exit never occurred.

What occurred was a transfer of control followed by years of legal aftershocks.

Source Record

The principal Russian-government action in 2023 is Order No. 890-r of 11 April 2023, approving Novatek Moscow Region LLC as purchaser of the 27.49999998621683% interest for 94.8 billion roubles. Interfax reproduced the operative terms and recorded publication through Russia’s official legal-information portal. (Interfax)

Interfax — Russian government approves Novatek purchase, 12 April 2023

Shell CFO Sinead Gorman’s May 2023 statement provides the clearest contemporaneous Shell response: no payment had been received and Shell retained its legal rights. (Interfax)

Interfax — Shell says no Sakhalin payment received, 4 May 2023

The principal 2024 Russian action is Order No. 701-r of 23 March 2024, replacing Novatek with Gazprom-controlled Sakhalin Project LLC at the same 94.8 billion-rouble price. (Interfax)

Interfax — Gazprom replaces Novatek as buyer, 25 March 2024

Reuters contemporaneously reported the Gazprom transaction and Shell’s continued reservation of legal rights. (BOE Report)

Reuters report — Gazprom acquisition of former Shell allocation

Shell’s latest authenticated position is contained in its 2025 Annual Report and Accounts and SEC reporting, which describe the continuing Moscow litigation, the approximately €1.5 billion alleged gas debt and the attempt to access approximately 94 billion roubles held for Sakhalin compensation. (Shell)

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025

SEC — Shell Russia contingency disclosure

Archive disclaimer: This instalment distinguishes between Shell’s original interest in the Bermuda-incorporated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, the unclaimed interest in the replacement Russian operator, and the Russian-government mechanism used to dispose of that interest. Russian prosecutorial claims are identified as allegations and are not presented as findings of liability. No inference of unlawful expropriation, unfair valuation or legal entitlement to compensation is made beyond what the cited documents establish.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LII: The Type-C Account — €1.5 Billion in Gas Claims, 94 Billion Roubles in Compensation and the Moscow Lawsuit Shell Cannot Yet Close

The 94.8 billion-rouble exit price did not end the Sakhalin story.

It became part of another dispute.

In October 2024, the Russian Prosecutor General sued eight Shell-group entities.

The claim reaches beyond Sakhalin ownership itself.

Russia alleges that Shell Energy Europe failed to pay approximately €1.5 billion for gas delivered in 2022.

It also seeks access to the 94 billion roubles purportedly reserved as Sakhalin equity compensation so that those funds can be applied against the alleged debt. (Shell)

Shell says the outcome remains highly uncertain.

The next file follows the litigation itself:

What is Russia alleging, how did an LNG supply dispute become tied to Shell’s Sakhalin compensation, what has happened inside the Moscow court, and why does Shell still say it cannot reliably estimate what — if anything — it may ultimately have to pay?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 18 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 18, 2026 at 7:24 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

.

68 disputed documents, allegations concerning disclosure of Kent Quinlan’s identity, a reserved Supreme Court judgment—and ASIC has already been urged in Parliament to examine the case

The long-running litigation between former ERM Power executive Kent Quinlan and Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd has reached another potentially important stage, with the Supreme Court of Queensland being asked to determine how legal professional privilege interacts with Australia’s statutory protections for corporate whistleblowers.

At the centre of the latest hearing are 68 documents that Quinlan is seeking from Shell.

According to a detailed report published on 18 September 2026 by Michael West Media, Shell maintains legal professional privilege over the disputed material, while Quinlan’s legal team argues that at least some communications may fall within the crime/fraud—or iniquity—exception to privilege. (Michael West)

Justice Soraya Ryan has reserved judgment and reportedly indicated that she hopes to deliver her decision by 7 November 2026. (Michael West)

This is an interlocutory dispute. The underlying allegations made by Quinlan remain contested and have not been determined at trial.

The 68 documents

Quinlan, formerly a senior executive at ERM Power before the company was acquired by Shell in 2019, has for years pursued litigation arising from matters he says he reported internally.

His allegations include claims concerning sham electricity transactions, insider trading, market manipulation, inflated profits, disclosure of his identity as a whistleblower and subsequent retaliation.

Those are Quinlan’s allegations. They are not findings of wrongdoing by a court.

The latest hearing concerns whether Shell can withhold the 68 documents on the basis of legal professional privilege.

Michael West Media reports that Tony Morris KC, appearing for Quinlan, invoked the exception under which privilege does not protect communications made in furtherance of crime, fraud or certain improper conduct attracting civil penalties. (Michael West)

Morris reportedly argued that if communications were created in furtherance of the misconduct alleged by Quinlan, privilege would not attach merely because lawyers were involved.

Shell’s position, according to the same report, is that Australia’s 2019 whistleblower reforms do not override legal professional privilege. (Michael West)

That leaves the court confronting an unusually important question: what happens when documents over which privilege is asserted are themselves alleged to contain evidence relevant to breaches of statutory whistleblower protections?

Shell evidence and 50 disputed documents

One reported feature of the hearing deserves particular attention.

According to Michael West Media, Shell’s own evidence identifies 50 of the 68 disputed documents as disclosing Quinlan’s identity as a whistleblower without his consent. (Michael West)

That statement should presently be treated as a report of evidence and argument before the court—not as a judicial finding that Shell unlawfully disclosed Quinlan’s identity.

Whether the circumstances amounted to a breach of the Corporations Act protections, and what consequences might follow, are matters for the court.

Nevertheless, the number illustrates why the privilege dispute is potentially consequential.

This follows the June disclosure judgment

The present hearing is not an isolated development.

In Quinlan v Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 115, the Supreme Court dealt in June with a series of interlocutory applications concerning disclosure and redactions.

The court ordered some further disclosure while refusing broader relief sought by Quinlan. Importantly, however, the challenge concerning legal professional privilege was left for later determination.

That is the issue which has now returned to court.

Our previous coverage can be found here:

Kent Quinlan v Shell: Court Fast-Tracks Evidence After Terminal Cancer Diagnosis (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

And Parliament has now entered the picture

There is another reason the latest hearing deserves attention.

Only two weeks ago, Senator Paul Scarr raised the Quinlan litigation during a hearing of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.

Addressing ASIC Chair Sarah Court, Senator Scarr referred to corporate defendants seeking suppression orders concerning evidence connected with allegations of corporate wrongdoing and asked:

“Doesn’t that raise red flags that ASIC should be looking into this matter?”

He subsequently encouraged ASIC to take a serious look at the case.

Sarah Court responded:

“Yes, Senator, we can do that.”

Our report on that intervention is here:

Senator Paul Scarr Urges ASIC to Examine Kent Quinlan’s Shell Case After Raising “Red Flags” (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

The parliamentary exchange did not establish the truth of Quinlan’s allegations and did not amount to an ASIC finding against Shell.

It did, however, put the regulator’s possible examination of the circumstances firmly on the public record.

Why the privilege ruling could matter beyond Shell

The immediate dispute concerns Quinlan and Shell, but the legal issue has potentially wider significance.

Australia strengthened its corporate whistleblower regime in 2019. Among its central protections is confidentiality surrounding the identity of qualifying whistleblowers.

Legal professional privilege is itself a longstanding and important protection, permitting clients to obtain confidential legal advice.

The difficulty presented in the Quinlan litigation is the collision between those principles where a party argues that privileged communications themselves may be relevant to alleged prohibited conduct.

Quinlan’s case therefore poses a question with implications extending beyond Shell:

Can legal professional privilege protect documents alleged to form part of the very conduct that whistleblower legislation was enacted to prevent?

Justice Ryan’s eventual reasons may provide an important answer—or at least clarify where Australian law draws the boundary.

A decision expected before Quinlan gives evidence

There is now a significant timetable.

Justice Ryan has reserved judgment and reportedly hopes to give her decision by 7 November 2026. (Michael West)

Quinlan is then scheduled to give evidence for approximately two weeks from 7 December 2026, based on an evidence-in-chief statement reported to run to almost 4,000 pages. (Michael West)

His evidence timetable has particular urgency because of his serious illness, which has previously led the proceedings to be accelerated.

That makes the coming weeks potentially important both for Quinlan personally and for the wider litigation.

What has—and has not—been established

Given the seriousness of the allegations, the distinction is essential.

Established from the public court and parliamentary record: litigation is continuing; disclosure and privilege have been contested; the latest privilege hearing has occurred; judgment has been reserved; and Senator Scarr has publicly asked ASIC to examine circumstances surrounding the case.

Reported from the latest hearing: 68 documents are disputed; Shell’s evidence reportedly identifies 50 as containing disclosure of Quinlan’s whistleblower identity without consent; Quinlan invokes the iniquity exception; Shell relies upon legal professional privilege.

Not established: that Shell or any other defendant committed insider trading, market manipulation, sham transactions, unlawful whistleblower disclosure, retaliation or other wrongdoing alleged in the proceedings.

Those allegations remain contested.

The next date to watch

The immediate date for the diary is 7 November 2026.

If Justice Ryan delivers the anticipated judgment by then, the court may provide considerably greater clarity about the disputed documents and, potentially, about the relationship between legal professional privilege and Australia’s corporate whistleblower regime.

After years of litigation, the Quinlan proceedings have now attracted judicial, parliamentary and potentially regulatory attention simultaneously.

That makes the next judgment considerably more than another procedural waypoint.

Sources: Michael West Media — 18 September 2026 | Previous RoyalDutchShellPlc.com Quinlan coverage | 4 September ASIC/Parliament report

Shell Whistleblower Case: Queensland Court Weighs Legal Privilege Against Whistleblower Protection was first posted on September 18, 2026 at 12:51 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Australia’s offshore regulator says a Prelude FLNG technician suffered hand fractures after turning gear moved unexpectedly during a manual engagement task. NOPSEMA found that Shell had not implemented effective engineering controls to prevent automatic operation and was relying too heavily on procedures, communication and worker actions to control hazardous energy.

Shell Australia has been issued with a new occupational health and safety improvement notice at Prelude FLNG after a worker suffered fracture injuries to the hand during the startup of a steam turbine generator.

The underlying NOPSEMA notice is more significant than the bare fact that an injury occurred.

According to Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, the incident exposed a weakness in the way hazardous energy was being controlled during a manual task.

NOPSEMA concluded that Shell had contravened offshore health and safety law — and that it was likely to contravene the same provision again unless the underlying control system was changed.

That is the real story.

What happened on 2 August 2026

NOPSEMA says that on 2 August 2026, a production technician was manually engaging the turning gear during startup of a steam turbine generator at Prelude FLNG.

The normal pneumatic engagement system had failed.

Manual engagement was therefore being used instead.

During that activity, an automated start sequence energised the turning-gear motor.

The barring equipment moved.

The technician suffered fracture injuries to the hand.

The incident immediately raises the most basic machinery-safety question:

Why was equipment capable of automatic movement while a worker was manually engaging it?

NOPSEMA’s inspection went directly to that issue.

The regulator’s answer: the engineering controls were not enough

NOPSEMA identified four principal problems.

First, it said effective engineering controls had not been implemented to prevent automatic operation of the turning gear during manual engagement.

Second, manual engagement remained necessary whenever the pneumatic engagement system was unavailable.

Third, the task relied predominantly on procedural controls, worker actions and communication to prevent exposure to hazardous energy.

And fourth, NOPSEMA said critical controls — including electrical-isolation requirements and supervision of procedural compliance — had not been effectively implemented or verified.

That distinction between engineering controls and procedural controls is crucial.

A procedure tells a worker what should happen.

An engineering control is intended to make the dangerous event physically impossible, or at least substantially less likely.

In hazardous-energy work, the latter is generally the stronger protection.

A worker should not have to rely on everybody remembering every step

The regulator’s reasoning is unusually clear.

NOPSEMA said the activity depended predominantly upon administrative controls, procedures and individual actions to prevent exposure to hazardous energy.

The inspector was not satisfied that reasonably practicable measures had been implemented to prevent the equipment becoming energised or moving while manual engagement was taking place.

NOPSEMA therefore concluded that Shell had contravened Clause 9(1) of Schedule 3 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006.

This is not simply criticism that someone failed to follow a procedure.

It is criticism of the control architecture itself.

The safety system depended too heavily on humans ensuring that the automated system did not operate at the wrong moment.

The regulator’s requirement is that Shell now redesign or strengthen the system so that the hazard is better controlled at source.

NOPSEMA said the same incident could happen again

The notice does not treat the August injury as a completed event with no continuing significance.

NOPSEMA said Shell was likely to contravene the law again because manual engagement remained part of operational practice whenever the pneumatic system was unavailable.

In other words, the underlying task had not disappeared.

Nor had the mechanism that produced the injury.

The regulator said existing controls still relied predominantly on procedural compliance, communication and worker actions.

That finding explains why an improvement notice was issued.

The issue was not merely what happened to one technician on one day.

It was whether the same combination of conditions could expose another worker to the same hazard.

The potential consequences go beyond a broken hand

NOPSEMA’s notice describes the continuing risk in stark terms.

Workers undertaking manual engagement of the steam turbine generator turning gear could be exposed to unexpected or uncontrolled movement.

That could result in a person being:

struck;

trapped;

or:

crushed

by moving equipment or between moving and fixed components.

NOPSEMA identified potential consequences including:

fractures;

crush injuries;

and:

permanent impairment.

That puts the August injury into context.

The technician suffered fractures.

The regulator is warning that the same mechanism could potentially produce something considerably worse.

What Shell has now been ordered to do

NOPSEMA has required action on two levels.

Before any further manual engagement of the turning gear is undertaken, Shell must implement and verify controls preventing the turning-gear motor, automated start sequence or any other relevant energy source from causing movement while a person could be exposed.

Then Shell must review the design and operation of the turning-gear engagement system itself.

The objective is to:

eliminate or minimise the need for manual engagement;

prevent workers being exposed to unexpected energisation or movement;

and demonstrate that critical controls — including isolation, verification, supervision and procedural controls — are implemented, maintained and verified effectively.

NOPSEMA has given Shell 180 days from the date of the notice to complete the required actions.

This is an improvement notice — not a shutdown order

The distinction matters.

NOPSEMA did not issue a prohibition notice stopping Prelude FLNG from operating.

It issued an OHS Improvement Notice.

Under NOPSEMA’s enforcement framework, an improvement notice can be issued when an inspector believes a duty holder has contravened offshore OHS law and that the contravention creates, or could create, a health and safety risk.

The notice remains in effect until the required actions have been completed.

Failure to comply is an offence. (NOPSEMA)

So this should not be reported as:

“NOPSEMA shut down Prelude.”

It did not.

The correct statement is:

NOPSEMA has formally required Shell to improve the safety controls governing this activity.

The notice remains open

NOPSEMA’s current published-notices register lists Improvement Notice 2130, dated 10 September 2026, against Shell Australia and Prelude FLNG.

Its status is shown as:

Open. (NOPSEMA)

That means the regulatory process is still active.

The notice will cease to have effect once Shell completes the required actions and the relevant compliance process is satisfied.

Prelude already has a regulatory history

The latest notice should not be treated as though Prelude has never before attracted regulatory concern.

That would be inaccurate.

In December 2021, Prelude suffered a major loss of power following smoke in an uninterrupted power supply room.

The event led to loss of normal power, repeated power interruptions and degradation of some critical systems.

Seven workers were treated for heat-related conditions during the incident, including four who required intravenous fluids. (NOPSEMA)

NOPSEMA subsequently issued a general direction requiring Shell to investigate and demonstrate that Prelude could operate safely during a power-loss event before production resumed. (NOPSEMA)

That episode was considerably more serious operationally than the current hand injury.

But it established an important background:

Prelude is a technically complex facility in which failures of energy, automation and critical systems can have consequences extending well beyond a single piece of machinery.

Hazardous gases produced another notice in 2025

NOPSEMA issued Shell another improvement notice at Prelude in February 2025.

That notice concerned exposure to hazardous gases including benzene and hydrogen sulphide.

The regulator said Shell had received reports of odour problems over an extended period and that workers had presented with health effects.

NOPSEMA was not satisfied that Shell had comprehensively assessed the sources and circumstances of potential exposure or effectively controlled the gases at source. (NOPSEMA)

The notice required Shell to implement improved detection, monitoring and control systems.

NOPSEMA’s current register shows that notice as complied with. (NOPSEMA)

That point should also be recorded.

The existence of a past notice does not mean the violation remains outstanding indefinitely.

Another Prelude notice in 2023

In July 2023, NOPSEMA issued a separate improvement notice over controls associated with work to remove a pressure-relief and vacuum-relief valve on an off-specification condensate tank.

NOPSEMA’s register now records that notice as complied with. (NOPSEMA)

Taken together, the record does not support the simplistic proposition:

“Prelude is permanently unsafe.”

But neither does it support treating the latest incident as an isolated regulatory curiosity.

Over several years, Australia’s offshore regulator has repeatedly intervened on different occupational and process-safety issues at the facility.

The important safety principle is hierarchy of controls

There is a broader reason the latest notice deserves attention.

Industrial safety normally distinguishes between stronger and weaker types of controls.

At the stronger end are measures that eliminate the hazard or physically prevent exposure.

Further down the hierarchy are administrative controls:

procedures;

training;

communications;

supervision;

permits;

and instructions.

Those controls matter.

But they can fail because human beings make mistakes.

People become distracted.

Shift handovers are imperfect.

Instructions are misunderstood.

Assumptions differ.

The regulator’s criticism at Prelude effectively reflects that principle.

Shell’s task depended too heavily on people and procedure when an engineering solution should have better prevented automatic energisation.

Automation becomes dangerous when its boundaries are unclear

There is another feature of the incident that deserves attention.

Automation usually improves industrial safety.

Machines perform repeatable sequences.

Interlocks prevent unsafe states.

Computer systems remove some opportunities for human error.

But automation introduces another risk when operators cannot be certain exactly when equipment may start or move.

That becomes particularly dangerous when a worker has physically entered the operating envelope of machinery to perform a manual intervention.

In such circumstances, the fundamental protection is isolation.

The worker should not have to trust that an automated start sequence will not run.

The system should prevent it from running.

That is effectively what NOPSEMA is now requiring Shell to demonstrate.

Prelude’s scale makes small failures important

Prelude FLNG is one of the largest floating industrial facilities ever constructed.

Its purpose is remarkable:

produce natural gas offshore;

process it;

liquefy it;

store LNG;

and load it directly onto LNG carriers,

all without sending the gas to a conventional onshore liquefaction plant.

That concentration of equipment makes Prelude technologically impressive.

It also creates formidable complexity.

Power generation.

Cryogenic systems.

Compressors.

Gas processing.

Storage.

Marine systems.

Automated controls.

Rotating equipment.

Emergency systems.

Thousands upon thousands of components have to interact safely on a floating installation far from shore.

Against that background, an injury involving a turning gear can sound minor.

It is not minor to the person whose hand was fractured.

And from a process-safety perspective, unexpected movement caused by uncontrolled hazardous energy is exactly the kind of mechanism that must be taken seriously before it produces a worse outcome.

The correct question is not whether Prelude has accidents

Every large industrial system experiences faults.

No credible safety regime assumes otherwise.

The meaningful question is:

What happens after the fault?

Does another layer of protection prevent a worker being exposed?

Does the machinery fail safely?

Does isolation prevent automatic energisation?

Can a single equipment fault combine with a procedural weakness to create an injury?

The latest NOPSEMA notice says that in this instance the protection was not good enough.

That finding deserves attention precisely because it comes from the offshore safety regulator rather than from speculation outside the facility.

Commentary

There is a tendency in corporate safety communications to describe injuries as unfortunate individual events.

A hand fracture.

A trip.

A dropped object.

A maintenance incident.

That framing can obscure the more important engineering question:

What system allowed the injury to happen?

NOPSEMA’s notice is useful because it does not stop at the injured technician.

It traces the event backwards.

The pneumatic system failed.

Manual intervention became necessary.

An automatic sequence remained capable of energising the motor.

The task relied predominantly upon procedures and human actions.

Critical isolation and supervision controls were not effectively implemented or verified.

Then the machinery moved.

That chain is the story.

And the regulator’s answer is equally important.

Do not merely improve the wording of the procedure.

Change the controls.

Reduce or eliminate the need for manual engagement.

Prevent unexpected energisation.

Verify isolation.

That is a much more meaningful response than simply reminding workers to “take care.”

Prelude’s history makes the notice harder to dismiss

No single incident proves a systemic safety culture failure.

That claim would go beyond the evidence.

The current notice concerns one particular activity.

The 2025 gas-exposure notice concerned a different hazard.

The 2023 notice involved another maintenance activity.

The 2021 power-loss investigation concerned facility-wide resilience.

They should not simply be added together as though they were one event.

But neither should they be considered in complete isolation.

Together they show that NOPSEMA has had reason, on multiple occasions, to intervene formally at Prelude.

That is a matter of public regulatory record.

For a facility as complex and strategically important as Prelude FLNG, those records deserve scrutiny.

What is established

On 2 August 2026, a Prelude production technician suffered fracture injuries to the hand during manual engagement of steam turbine generator turning gear.

The normal pneumatic engagement system had failed.

During the manual task, an automated start sequence energised the turning-gear motor, causing movement of the barring equipment.

NOPSEMA found that Shell had not implemented effective engineering controls to prevent automatic operation during manual engagement.

The regulator also found that the activity relied predominantly on procedures, communication and worker actions and that critical controls including isolation and supervision had not been effectively implemented or verified.

NOPSEMA concluded that Shell had contravened Clause 9(1) of Schedule 3 to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act and was likely to contravene the provision again unless the risk was addressed.

Shell has been given 180 days to complete the required actions.

NOPSEMA currently lists the notice as open. (NOPSEMA)

What is not established

The notice does not establish that Prelude FLNG as a whole is unsafe.

It does not establish that Shell deliberately exposed the worker to injury.

It does not allege that the incident was concealed.

And it does not amount to a prohibition on Prelude production.

The regulator’s finding is specific:

the controls governing manual engagement of the turning gear were inadequate and must be improved.

Sources

NOPSEMA — OHS Improvement Notice 2130, Prelude FLNG, 10 September 2026.

This is the primary regulatory document setting out the injury, the circumstances, the legal contravention, the continuing risk and the corrective actions required of Shell.

NOPSEMA — OHS Improvement Notice 2130, Prelude FLNG

NOPSEMA — Published directions and notices.

The regulator currently lists Improvement Notice 2130 against Shell Australia Pty Ltd and Prelude FLNG with status Open. (NOPSEMA)

NOPSEMA — Published directions and notices

NOPSEMA — Investigation of the December 2021 Prelude FLNG power-loss incident.

The investigation records facility-wide power disruption and seven workers treated for heat-related conditions. (NOPSEMA)

NOPSEMA — Prelude FLNG power-loss investigation report

NOPSEMA — OHS Improvement Notice 1967, February 2025.

The notice addressed workforce exposure risks involving benzene and hydrogen sulphide at Prelude. NOPSEMA’s register now lists it as complied with. (NOPSEMA)

NOPSEMA — Improvement Notice 1967

Energy News Bulletin: reporting on the new Prelude improvement notice and worker injury.

Energy News Bulletin — Shell hit with NOPSEMA notice after injury onboard Prelude

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Prelude Worker Injured After Machinery Energised During Manual Task — NOPSEMA Orders Shell to Fix Safety Controls was first posted on September 18, 2026 at 10:08 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Shell-led LNG Canada could make a final investment decision on Phase 2 as early as October, according to Reuters. If approved, the expansion would roughly double the Kitimat facility’s capacity from 14 million tonnes a year to about 28 million tonnes. More importantly, it would connect Shell’s enlarged Western Canadian gas position directly to Asian LNG markets at a time when buyers are increasingly concerned about supply security.

Shell may be approaching one of the most consequential investment decisions in its global LNG portfolio.

Reuters reported on 17 September that the partners in LNG Canada could reach a final investment decision on the proposed Phase 2 expansion as early as next month, citing three people familiar with the matter.

The project would add roughly another 14 million tonnes per annum of LNG capacity, taking the Kitimat facility from its current 14 mtpa to approximately 28 mtpa.

That would effectively double the scale of Canada’s first major LNG export terminal.

But the number alone does not explain why Phase 2 matters so much to Shell.

The real significance lies in what sits behind the liquefaction trains:

Shell’s expanding Montney gas production.

Its 40% stake in LNG Canada.

Its global LNG trading organisation.

Its shorter Pacific shipping route to Asia.

And now:

a geopolitical environment in which Asian customers are placing increasing value on diversified supply that does not depend upon Middle Eastern shipping routes.

That combination makes Phase 2 potentially much more than an expansion project.

It could become one of the clearest expressions yet of Shell’s integrated gas strategy.

First, the important caveat

Phase 2 has not yet been approved.

Reuters reports that a decision could come as early as early October.

But Shell told Reuters that it continues to work with its venture partners to explore pathways towards a possible expansion, and that any decision would depend upon factors including competitiveness, affordability, government support and stakeholder needs.

LNG Canada itself was equally careful.

It said that any final investment decision remained subject to each joint-venture participant independently satisfying its commercial, fiscal, regulatory and governance requirements.

The company said only that it hoped to make a decision before the end of 2026.

So the correct position today is:

Phase 2 appears to be moving closer to FID.

Not:

Phase 2 has been sanctioned.

That distinction should remain explicit until the partners make a formal announcement.

Shell is the largest shareholder

The LNG Canada ownership structure is:

Shell — 40%

PETRONAS — 25%

PetroChina — 15%

Mitsubishi — 15%

KOGAS — 5%

Shell therefore holds the largest individual interest and operates the project through LNG Canada Development Inc.

The existing facility consists of two LNG trains with combined capacity of approximately 14 mtpa.

The proposed expansion would add two further trains and roughly double the plant’s output.

That alone would make Phase 2 significant.

But recent developments have made it strategically more interesting.

LNG Canada only started shipping last year

Phase 1 reached a historic milestone on 30 June 2025, when its first LNG cargo departed Kitimat.

Shell described the project at the time as a new supply source primarily serving Asian markets and said LNG Canada would strengthen its integrated gas portfolio.

The existing plant was one of Canada’s largest private-sector investments, with Reuters putting Phase 1’s cost at approximately C$40 billion.

So Shell and its partners are potentially considering doubling the facility barely more than a year after LNG Canada entered commercial operation.

That is an unusually rapid transition from:

“Can this vast project actually be built and started?”

to:

“Should we build another two trains?”

The answer is not yet known.

But even serious consideration of Phase 2 at this stage says something important about how the partners view the asset.

The location is one of LNG Canada’s greatest advantages

Kitimat is not simply another liquefaction terminal.

Its geography gives Shell a significant structural advantage in supplying Asia.

Shell’s own investor material says LNG Canada can reach Asian markets in around 10 days.

The same presentation shows indicative shipping times of roughly:

24 days from the US Gulf Coast;

16 days from the Middle East;

and:

8 days from Australia.

That matters because LNG is not just natural gas.

It is natural gas plus liquefaction plus shipping plus regasification.

Every extra day at sea costs money.

A shorter route can mean:

lower freight costs;

less fuel consumption;

less exposure to vessel availability;

faster cargo cycling;

and fewer maritime chokepoints.

Shell describes LNG Canada as having lower supply and shipping costs versus the US Gulf Coast, giving it what the company calls a structural margin advantage.

That is precisely the sort of advantage Wael Sawan’s Shell now prioritises.

And there is no Panama Canal problem

US Gulf Coast LNG bound for Asia can face a choice.

Transit the Panama Canal when capacity and vessel dimensions permit.

Or take a much longer route.

Canadian Pacific LNG avoids that problem.

A cargo leaving Kitimat is already on the Pacific side of North America.

That means LNG Canada is geographically aligned with the markets Shell expects to drive a substantial share of future gas demand.

Shell has said LNG Canada offers an advantageous route to Asia with shipping times substantially shorter than those from the US Gulf Coast.

That was commercially attractive before the latest Middle East disruption.

It becomes more interesting when customers begin attaching an explicit premium to supply-route diversity.

Reuters says Asian buyers are increasingly focused on security

This is where the timing becomes particularly important.

Reuters reports that LNG customers — especially in Asia — are placing greater emphasis on supply security because of:

the Middle East conflict;

Red Sea disruption;

and uncertainty surrounding future flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

That does not mean LNG Canada replaces Middle Eastern LNG.

Qatar alone is too important for that.

Nor does it mean Canadian LNG is insulated from every geopolitical or operational risk.

But it does offer a geographically distinct source of supply.

For a utility or national energy buyer trying to diversify procurement, that matters.

The attraction is therefore not merely that Canada can supply LNG.

It is that Canadian LNG reaches Asia through an entirely different geopolitical corridor.

Shell has just spent $13.9 billion buying more Canadian energy

Then comes the ARC Resources acquisition.

On 2 September 2026, Shell completed its acquisition of ARC Resources for an updated equity value of approximately US$13.9 billion, assuming roughly US$2.5 billion of net debt and leases for an enterprise value of approximately US$16.5 billion.

ARC adds approximately 370,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day across gas and liquids and dramatically expands Shell’s position in the Montney basin of British Columbia and Alberta.

Shell explicitly said when announcing the acquisition that ARC’s gas reserves have the potential to support its LNG growth in Canada.

That makes the timing of a possible LNG Canada Phase 2 decision especially significant.

Only weeks after completing one of Shell’s largest recent acquisitions, the company could move towards creating a much larger export outlet for Western Canadian gas.

That starts to look less like coincidence and more like an integrated strategy.

Groundbirch already feeds LNG Canada

Shell was already vertically integrated before buying ARC.

Its Groundbirch gas asset in British Columbia supplies LNG Canada as well as the domestic gas market.

ARC adds much more gas-producing acreage and resources in the same broad basin.

Shell’s April acquisition presentation went further.

It identified LNG Canada Phase 2 explicitly as part of the strategic upside from the combination.

On one slide, Shell described LNG Canada Phase 2 as providing:

“optionality to further accelerate shift towards non-US international pricing.”

That sentence deserves attention.

Because it explains in financial terms why Shell might want another 14 million tonnes of LNG capacity.

From AECO gas to international LNG pricing

Western Canadian natural gas is frequently priced against AECO, a benchmark that can trade at substantial discounts when local gas supply exceeds takeaway capacity.

A gas producer selling exclusively into that market is exposed to those regional conditions.

Liquefaction changes the equation.

Convert Canadian gas into LNG and move it to Asia, and the molecule can gain exposure to international pricing rather than remaining trapped inside the Western Canadian gas market.

Shell’s own analysis shows the potential effect.

Its April 2026 presentation estimated that the combined portfolio had roughly:

40% AECO exposure

and:

60% international exposure

before Phase 2.

With LNG Canada Phase 2, Shell’s indicative analysis showed that changing to approximately:

20% AECO exposure

and:

80% international exposure.

That is arguably the single most revealing chart in the entire Phase 2 story.

The expansion is not simply about producing more LNG.

It is about changing where Shell’s Canadian gas is priced.

Shell calls that a structural margin advantage

The same Shell presentation makes the economic logic explicit.

Lower supply and shipping costs to Asia compared with US Gulf Coast exports can generate what Shell calls a:

“structural margin advantage.”

That phrase goes directly to Wael Sawan’s corporate strategy.

Shell is not pursuing growth simply because growth looks impressive.

The company repeatedly says projects must compete for capital and generate attractive returns.

That is why Phase 2 remains conditional.

The partners still have to decide that the economics justify another enormous investment.

But if it does pass that test, Shell’s own analysis suggests that the opportunity is unusually integrated:

produce low-cost Canadian gas;

liquefy it at a plant Shell already knows;

ship it across a comparatively short route;

sell it into higher-value international markets;

and optimise the entire chain through Shell’s global trading organisation.

Trading sits in the middle again

This follows a pattern we have already seen in Shell’s US power transactions.

Physical assets become more valuable when they support Shell’s trading capability.

LNG Canada is the same principle on a much larger scale.

Shell does not merely receive its share of LNG and sell it to one fixed customer.

Its Integrated Gas organisation manages a global portfolio.

Cargoes can be sold under long-term arrangements.

Others can be optimised.

Market exposure can be managed geographically.

Shipping can be redirected.

Gas can be sourced from Shell-owned production or purchased from the market.

That optionality becomes more valuable during periods of volatility.

Phase 2 could therefore connect the whole Canadian chain

Put the pieces together.

Shell now has:

a vastly enlarged Montney resource position;

existing gas production at Groundbirch;

ARC’s producing and development assets;

a 40% interest in LNG Canada;

a functioning Pacific Coast export terminal;

one of the world’s largest LNG trading portfolios;

and a direct route into Asia.

Phase 2 could enlarge the pipe connecting all of those pieces.

That is why this story matters far more than the simple headline:

“LNG plant may double in size.”

It potentially converts Shell’s Canadian upstream acquisition into a more valuable international gas business.

The Indigenous ownership proposal is also significant

There is another important element that should not be treated as a footnote.

In July 2026, LNG Canada announced an equity option agreement with MNT Investments LP, representing the economic-development organisations of five neighbouring First Nations:

the Gitga’at First Nation;

Gitxaała Nation;

Haisla Nation;

Kitselas First Nation;

and Kitsumkalum.

The agreement gives MNT Investments the opportunity to invest up to C$1 billion for a majority ownership interest in a special-purpose entity that would purchase the additional LNG storage tank planned for Phase 2.

The tank would then be leased back to LNG Canada.

LNG Canada says the arrangement could become one of the largest Indigenous ownership positions in Canadian energy infrastructure.

Importantly, the agreement is conditional on Phase 2 being approved.

That makes the forthcoming investment decision important not only to Shell and its international partners, but also to communities around the project.

More than 100 cargoes already shipped

By July 2026, LNG Canada said the first phase had shipped more than 100 LNG cargoes since operations began on 30 June 2025.

That operational history matters.

Phase 2 would not be a greenfield proposal built around a theoretical future facility.

The marine terminal exists.

The first two liquefaction trains exist.

The pipeline connection exists.

Cargoes are moving.

The workforce, operating systems and supporting infrastructure are already substantially in place.

That does not remove construction risk.

Two new LNG trains would still involve enormous expenditure and execution complexity.

But it means Phase 2 begins from a very different position from Phase 1.

The first phase was difficult enough

That deserves emphasis.

Phase 1 took years of planning, construction and capital.

The C$40 billion price tag cited by Reuters gives some indication of the scale.

A decision to expand cannot therefore be interpreted simply as Shell deciding that “LNG prices are high, so build more.”

The partners have to assess:

construction cost;

labour availability;

gas supply;

contracting;

future carbon costs;

fiscal terms;

project returns;

shipping economics;

regulation;

stakeholder requirements;

and long-term LNG demand.

LNG Canada itself has repeatedly said Phase 2 must satisfy tests concerning competitiveness, affordability, pace, future greenhouse-gas emissions and stakeholder needs.

That is why an early-October decision remains plausible rather than certain.

Shell also has a carbon argument

Shell presents LNG Canada as comparatively advantaged on emissions intensity.

The project uses efficient gas turbines and hydroelectric power for supporting energy needs, and Shell says the facility is designed to rank among the lower-carbon-intensity LNG plants globally.

LNG Canada says any Phase 2 pathway would need to maintain its greenhouse-gas-intensity ambition.

That does not make LNG carbon-free.

Liquefaction consumes energy.

Methane leakage matters.

Shipping produces emissions.

And ultimately the natural gas is burned by customers.

But within the LNG industry, production and liquefaction carbon intensity increasingly affect project competitiveness.

That gives LNG Canada another characteristic Shell can attempt to monetise.

Then there is the coal argument

Shell continues to argue that LNG can support emissions reduction where gas replaces coal in power generation.

When the first LNG Canada cargo departed, Shell said Asian markets moving away from coal represented an important use case for the project.

That argument is contested because the actual climate outcome depends upon methane leakage, plant efficiency, what fuel is genuinely displaced and how long the gas infrastructure operates.

But from Shell’s commercial perspective, the important point is clear:

Asia remains central to its long-term LNG demand thesis.

And LNG Canada is designed geographically around supplying that market.

The timing could hardly be more favourable — commercially

There is a temptation to describe the present geopolitical crisis as “good for LNG Canada.”

That would be too crude.

Wars and supply disruptions impose severe human and economic costs and should not be reduced to convenient investment narratives.

But commercially, the current environment undeniably strengthens one part of LNG Canada’s investment case:

supply diversification.

Only yesterday Shell’s own chief economist warned that global energy-market “shock absorbers” are weakening after tens of millions of tonnes of expected LNG supply were lost.

Now Reuters reports that Shell’s flagship Canadian LNG project may be approaching a decision to double capacity.

Those stories are related.

Not because the Middle East conflict created LNG Canada Phase 2 — the expansion has been contemplated for years.

But because present conditions make the strategic value of geographically diversified LNG supply easier to see.

For Shell shareholders, this could be an unusually coherent growth project

A frequent problem with large energy-company portfolios is that acquisitions and capital projects can seem disconnected.

Here the pieces fit remarkably well.

Shell bought ARC.

ARC adds gas.

Shell already owns Groundbirch.

Groundbirch feeds LNG Canada.

Shell owns 40% of LNG Canada.

Phase 2 would double liquefaction capacity.

Canada’s west coast gives direct access to Asia.

Shell trades LNG globally.

And its own modelling suggests Phase 2 could materially increase international pricing exposure while reducing dependence on AECO.

That is strategic integration in a very literal sense.

But the capital test still matters

All of this does not mean the partners should automatically approve Phase 2.

The scale of LNG investment now proposed around the world is enormous.

North American LNG export capacity is expanding rapidly.

Projects are being developed in the United States, Canada, Qatar and elsewhere.

An asset that looks extremely attractive in a tight market can face very different economics when a wave of new supply arrives.

Shell has to consider the market expected when Phase 2 actually begins producing — not merely the market of September 2026.

That is why cost discipline remains critical.

If project costs rise enough, even an excellent location can lose its advantage.

Shell’s own numbers show why management is interested

The strongest evidence that Phase 2 has moved beyond a vague future possibility comes from Shell itself.

In April, while explaining the ARC acquisition to investors, Shell placed LNG Canada Phase 2 directly inside the value-creation logic of the transaction.

It showed the proposed project on its Canadian asset map.

It identified Phase 2 pricing as a source of additional upside.

And it modelled the expansion as potentially shifting the enlarged gas portfolio towards substantially greater international price exposure.

Those are not promises that FID will happen.

But they tell investors exactly why Shell cares about it.

Commentary

LNG Canada Phase 2 may eventually prove to be one of the simplest ways to understand Wael Sawan’s Shell.

The company wants upstream resources.

But preferably advantaged ones.

It wants LNG growth.

But preferably where transport economics are attractive.

It wants trading optionality.

It wants international pricing.

It wants investments capable of generating strong returns.

And it increasingly prefers businesses in which multiple parts of Shell’s portfolio reinforce one another.

Canada now offers all of those things in one chain.

Montney gas at one end.

Asian LNG buyers at the other.

Shell sitting in between as producer, liquefaction shareholder, shipper, marketer and trader.

The acquisition of ARC Resources made that chain substantially larger.

Phase 2 could make it substantially more valuable.

That does not make approval inevitable.

The partners still have to decide whether the economics justify committing many billions of dollars more.

But if Reuters is correct that an FID could come within weeks, the decision would be much more than another LNG project sanction.

It would amount to a major statement about where Shell believes the future of its gas business lies.

Not merely underground in Canada.

But across the Pacific.

What is established

LNG Canada Phase 1 has two trains with combined capacity of about 14 mtpa, and its first cargo departed on 30 June 2025.

Shell owns 40% of the venture.

The proposed Phase 2 expansion would add two further trains and approximately double capacity to around 28 mtpa.

Reuters reports that a final investment decision could come as early as early October 2026, citing three people familiar with the matter.

Shell and LNG Canada have not announced a final investment decision.

Shell’s own ARC Resources investor presentation identifies Phase 2 as potential upside and says it could increase the portfolio’s international pricing exposure while reducing AECO exposure.

Shell completed its acquisition of ARC Resources on 2 September 2026, adding approximately 370 kboe/d and substantial Montney gas and liquids resources.

Five neighbouring First Nations, through MNT Investments LP, have an option to invest up to C$1 billion in infrastructure associated with Phase 2 if the expansion proceeds.

What remains uncertain

The timing of FID remains uncertain.

The final capital cost has not been publicly established in the material reviewed here.

The exact design and ultimate capacity of Phase 2 may still evolve.

Future LNG prices, construction costs and long-term demand remain uncertain.

And no current market condition guarantees that an investment sanctioned today will generate the returns expected when it begins operating years later.

Sources

Reuters, 17 September 2026: Shell-led LNG Canada could approve Phase 2 expansion by early October, sources say.

Reuters report

Shell, 30 June 2025: announcement of LNG Canada’s first cargo; Shell’s 40% interest and existing 14 mtpa capacity.

Shell — First cargo leaves LNG Canada

Shell, 27 April 2026: ARC Resources acquisition announcement and strategic rationale.

Shell — Agreement to acquire ARC Resources

Shell ARC Resources investor presentation, April 2026: Shell’s analysis of Phase 2, international pricing exposure, AECO exposure and shipping advantage.

Shell — ARC Resources acquisition presentation

Shell, 2 September 2026: completion of the ARC Resources acquisition.

Shell — Completion of ARC Resources acquisition

LNG Canada, 14 July 2026: Indigenous equity option involving MNT Investments LP and five neighbouring First Nations; investment option of up to C$1 billion conditional on Phase 2 proceeding.

LNG Canada — Indigenous equity option

LNG Canada: current Phase 2 information and confirmation that the expansion remains under consideration by the joint-venture participants.

LNG Canada — Phase 2 information

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

From Canadian Gas to Asian Buyers: Why LNG Canada Phase 2 Could Become the Centrepiece of Shell’s LNG Strategy was first posted on September 18, 2026 at 9:53 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Shell’s chief economist says global energy markets have so far absorbed an extraordinary loss of oil and LNG supply from the Middle East. But the mechanisms that cushioned the blow — weaker demand, inventory drawdowns, spare infrastructure and rising American production — are wearing thin. Europe enters winter with unusually low gas stocks. Asian buyers are already retreating from expensive LNG. And Shell warns that even reopening disrupted trade routes would not immediately restore normal conditions.

There are times when a single phrase explains a complicated market remarkably well.

On 16 September 2026, Adam Ritchie, chief economist at Shell Trading, told an industry conference in Oslo that global energy markets had demonstrated impressive resilience despite severe disruption in the Middle East.

But then came the warning:

“Those shock absorbers are weakening.” (London South East)

That may be the most important energy-market statement Shell has made this week.

Because according to Shell’s calculations, the world has already lost approximately:

36 million tonnes of LNG

and:

1.6 billion barrels of crude oil and condensates

since the current Middle East disruption began. (London South East)

For perspective, Reuters reports that the 36 million tonnes of missing LNG is roughly equivalent to the combined LNG imports of Britain and France last year. (London South East)

Yet the global energy system did not collapse.

The interesting question is why.

And the more important question now is what happens as the buffers that prevented collapse begin to disappear.

How did the world absorb such a large supply loss?

Shell’s answer is instructive.

The market was cushioned by a combination of:

weaker Chinese demand;

inventory drawdowns;

flexible shipping capacity;

spare pipeline capacity;

and:

rising oil and gas production in the Americas.

Together, those mechanisms absorbed a remarkable amount of disruption. (London South East)

That is what Ritchie means by “shock absorbers.”

They are not one emergency reserve controlled by one government.

They are the spare capacity and behavioural flexibility scattered throughout the global energy system.

Consumers use less.

Cargoes change destination.

Inventories are drawn down.

Pipelines carry more.

Producers elsewhere increase output.

Traders redirect supply.

The market adapts.

Until it cannot.

The warning is that the spare capacity is disappearing

Ritchie’s argument is not that the market has failed.

It is almost the opposite.

The market has worked extraordinarily hard.

The problem is that the mechanisms doing the work are becoming exhausted.

As inventories fall, there is less stored energy available for the next disruption.

As spare shipping capacity is deployed, there are fewer vessels available to solve the next bottleneck.

As pipeline systems operate closer to their limits, there is less ability to reroute gas.

And as alternative producers increase output, their remaining spare production capacity becomes smaller.

That makes subsequent shocks more dangerous than the first one.

A system with abundant slack can absorb bad news.

A system operating close to its limits transmits bad news directly into prices.

That is the essence of Shell’s warning.

Europe is entering winter with an uncomfortable problem

Nowhere is the vulnerability more obvious than Europe.

Reuters reported this week that European Union natural-gas storage is only about 67% full.

That is described as a record low for this point in the year and is far below the EU’s target of storage reaching 80% of capacity by December. (BOE Report)

Shell’s President of Integrated Gas, Cederic Cremers, described Europe as entering the end of autumn with historically low storage levels. (BOE Report)

That creates a familiar but dangerous dependency.

Europe now needs:

continued LNG arrivals;

continued Norwegian pipeline supply;

manageable winter temperatures;

and sufficiently weak Asian demand to prevent an aggressive bidding war for cargoes.

Lose one of those advantages and the market becomes tighter.

Lose several simultaneously and prices could move very rapidly.

Germany shows how thin the margin has become

Germany provides an especially revealing example.

Reuters reported that German gas-storage sites were only around 53% full in early September, the lowest level for that point in the year since records began approximately 15 years ago. (Yahoo Finance)

Germany’s state-owned SEFE has already begun increasing gas storage, while the government is examining additional market incentives to encourage traders to hold more winter supply. (Yahoo Finance)

That is a significant change of posture.

Europe spent years building resilience after the loss of large quantities of Russian pipeline gas.

Now it is discovering that resilience itself requires constant replenishment.

Storage is not resilience if the tanks are empty.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the critical pressure point

The most important LNG bottleneck is the Strait of Hormuz.

Before the current disruption, approximately one fifth of global LNG supply passed through the route.

Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are among the most important exporters affected.

Shell’s own LNG Outlook 2026, published in June, stated that severe disruption through Hormuz had shut in around one fifth of the world’s monthly LNG supply since the conflict began. (Shell)

That is not a marginal loss.

Global LNG trade totalled approximately 422 million tonnes in 2025.

Removing tens of millions of tonnes from that market in a short period creates an enormous reallocation problem. (Shell)

Every missing Middle Eastern cargo has to be replaced, substituted or rationed somehow.

America has helped save the market

One of the most important stabilising forces has been the growth of LNG supply from North America.

Shell itself says the ramp-up of new liquefaction capacity in North America has helped offset Middle Eastern disruption. (Shell)

That trend matters enormously.

The United States is already the world’s largest LNG exporter and is expected to expand exports substantially through the end of the decade.

For Europe, American LNG has become increasingly important as Russian pipeline supply has declined.

For Asia, the same cargoes represent competition.

And that creates one of the defining characteristics of the modern LNG market:

Europe and Asia are increasingly bidding for the same flexible supply.

Asia is already responding by buying less

High prices eventually solve a supply problem in one brutal way.

They destroy demand.

Reuters reports that Asia’s LNG imports are heading towards their weakest September in eight years.

Expected arrivals of approximately 20.09 million tonnes would be down from 22.27 million tonnes in September 2025. (BOE Report)

Why?

Because LNG has become too expensive for many buyers.

Spot prices in Asia have climbed close to $30 per million British thermal units, compared with roughly $10 before the conflict. (BOE Report)

For wealthy utilities in Japan or Europe, painful prices can sometimes be absorbed.

For price-sensitive markets in South and Southeast Asia, the response is different.

Buy less LNG.

Burn more coal.

Use more domestic gas.

Switch fuels.

Curtail demand.

Or simply go without.

That creates an uncomfortable paradox for Shell

Shell is one of the biggest beneficiaries of a global LNG market.

It is also exposed to what happens when LNG becomes too expensive.

Shell describes itself as one of the world’s leading LNG suppliers.

Its LNG business met approximately 16% of global LNG demand in 2025. (Shell)

Its portfolio includes supply from more than ten countries and sales into more than thirty.

It also controls or charters one of the world’s largest LNG shipping fleets. (Shell)

That scale gives Shell extraordinary flexibility.

If prices differ sharply between markets, Shell can redirect cargoes.

If one region weakens, another may absorb supply.

If shipping routes change, Shell’s large fleet and trading operation can adapt.

Volatility therefore creates opportunities.

But volatility also has a limit.

When prices become sufficiently high, customers leave the market.

That is not good for long-term demand.

Shell’s strategic bet on LNG is enormous

This matters because Shell has made LNG central to its corporate strategy.

At its 2025 Capital Markets Day, Shell said it intended to grow LNG sales by 4% to 5% annually through 2030. (Shell)

Its 2025 Annual Report records LNG sales of 73 million tonnes, up from 66 million tonnes the previous year.

Shell said 2025 included the highest number of LNG cargoes it had ever delivered in a single year. (Shell)

The company also expects global LNG demand to rise substantially over the long term.

Shell’s 2026 outlook forecasts demand increasing by approximately 65% by 2050, to nearly 700 million tonnes annually. (Shell)

So when Shell warns that the global LNG market is losing its shock absorbers, it is not offering an academic observation.

This is one of the most important markets in Shell’s entire corporate strategy.

The trading desk sits at the centre of all this

The warning also fits remarkably well with another theme visible across Shell’s recent strategy.

Trading.

Shell’s Integrated Gas business does not merely produce LNG.

It buys it.

Sells it.

Ships it.

Redirects it.

Optimises it.

Arbitrages geographic price differences.

And combines physical infrastructure with financial and contractual flexibility.

Shell’s own portfolio description says the Integrated Gas segment markets and trades natural gas, LNG, power and carbon-emission rights. (Shell)

That means disruption can enhance the value of Shell’s trading capability.

If an LNG cargo has dramatically different values in Europe and Asia, optionality becomes valuable.

If one shipping route closes, an organisation capable of redirecting supply gains an advantage.

If markets fragment, a company with physical assets in multiple regions can exploit those differences.

Shell’s scale becomes useful precisely when the system becomes complicated.

But extreme volatility can stop being profitable and start becoming destructive

There is a temptation to assume that higher energy prices automatically mean higher profits for Shell.

That is too simple.

Very high prices can create:

demand destruction;

counterparty stress;

political intervention;

windfall taxes;

subsidies;

industrial shutdowns;

fuel switching;

recession;

and accelerated investment in alternatives.

A customer who pays an expensive LNG bill is still a customer.

A customer who switches permanently to coal, domestic gas, nuclear power or renewables is not.

That is why the current crisis is strategically ambiguous for Shell.

Short-term volatility may favour Shell’s trading business.

Long-term affordability problems can undermine the growth story on which Shell’s LNG strategy depends.

What happens when the route reopens?

Perhaps the most sobering part of Ritchie’s warning concerns what comes after the disruption.

The intuitive assumption is simple:

Hormuz reopens.

Ships sail again.

Supply returns.

Prices fall.

Problem solved.

Shell says reality may be considerably messier.

Ritchie warned that even if disrupted energy chokepoints reopen, bottlenecks involving shipping, production and supply chains could prevent markets returning immediately to normal.

He suggested tight conditions could persist well into 2027, assuming no additional damage to energy infrastructure. (London South East)

Then comes the second phase.

Restocking.

The world has drawn down inventories to survive the disruption.

Those inventories eventually have to be rebuilt.

That process itself creates additional demand.

So restoring the flow of energy does not instantly restore the buffer that previously existed.

The market has borrowed resilience from the future

That may be the clearest way to understand Shell’s warning.

The global energy system has survived the current disruption partly by borrowing resilience from the future.

It used inventories that would otherwise have been available later.

It used spare pipeline capacity.

It used shipping flexibility.

It relied on weaker demand.

It accelerated alternative production.

Those mechanisms kept the system functioning.

But once used, they have to be restored.

Storage must be refilled.

Inventories rebuilt.

Ships repositioned.

Maintenance completed.

Supply chains normalised.

That means even after the immediate crisis passes, the energy system can remain fragile.

Weather now matters enormously

There is one variable nobody controls.

Winter.

Reuters reports that industry executives see a cold winter in Europe and Asia as one of the principal risks.

Wood Mackenzie chairman Simon Flowers said a colder-than-normal winter could push global LNG prices towards $40 per million BTU, although that is a scenario rather than a forecast. (BOE Report)

At such prices, further demand destruction would become likely.

A mild winter would relieve pressure.

A severe winter would do the opposite.

Energy security can therefore turn on meteorology as much as geopolitics.

Shell’s warning is also a warning to governments

There is an obvious policy implication.

Modern energy systems have been built increasingly around efficiency.

Just-in-time supply.

Optimised inventories.

Interconnected markets.

Global shipping.

Flexible trading.

Under normal conditions, that reduces cost.

Under extreme conditions, it can reduce redundancy.

Shell’s “shock absorber” metaphor therefore raises an uncomfortable question:

How much spare capacity should the global energy system deliberately maintain?

Too much spare capacity is expensive.

Too little makes consumers vulnerable to geopolitical disruption.

That problem is not unique to LNG.

Oil inventories, electricity storage, spare generation, pipelines and fuel reserves all involve the same trade-off.

Resilience costs money.

So does the absence of resilience.

There is a broader irony here

Shell has spent years arguing that LNG contributes to energy security because it allows natural gas to move across oceans rather than remaining trapped within pipeline systems.

That argument is valid.

The global LNG market genuinely creates flexibility.

But the present crisis demonstrates the other side.

LNG depends upon:

liquefaction plants;

shipping routes;

LNG carriers;

regasification terminals;

finance;

insurance;

and access through critical maritime chokepoints.

A pipeline can be geopolitically vulnerable.

So can a ship.

There is no completely geopolitics-proof energy system.

Diversification is the real protection.

Shell’s own numbers make the scale difficult to ignore

Return to the two figures:

36 million tonnes of LNG.

1.6 billion barrels of crude oil and condensates.

Those quantities have already disappeared from the expected global supply system.

And yet markets have continued functioning.

That is evidence of impressive resilience.

But resilience should not be confused with immunity.

The buffers that allowed the world to absorb those losses are smaller now than they were when the crisis began.

The next disruption therefore begins from a weaker starting point.

That is what Adam Ritchie was warning about.

Commentary

Shell’s message deserves attention precisely because the company has every reason to understand the mechanics of this market.

It is not merely an LNG producer.

It is producer, shipper, buyer, seller, trader and optimiser.

Few companies possess a better view across the entire physical LNG chain.

And the message coming from that vantage point is not:

everything is fine.

It is:

the system has coped remarkably well, but much of the spare capacity that allowed it to cope has now been consumed.

For Shell shareholders, that creates both opportunity and danger.

Scarcity increases the value of flexible supply.

Volatility increases the value of trading expertise.

Geographical price differences create arbitrage opportunities.

Shell possesses all three advantages.

But an energy market cannot become indefinitely more expensive without eventually damaging the demand it is designed to serve.

The strongest LNG business in the world still needs customers capable of buying LNG.

That may be the central tension of Shell’s LNG strategy in 2026.

The company is positioned extremely well for a volatile market.

What it cannot control is how much volatility the market itself can withstand.

What is established

Shell calculates that approximately 36 million tonnes of LNG and 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil and condensates have been lost from expected global supply during the Middle East disruption. (London South East)

Shell’s chief economist Adam Ritchie said weaker Chinese demand, inventory drawdowns, flexible shipping, spare pipeline capacity and higher American production had helped absorb the shock, but warned that those buffers were weakening. (London South East)

EU gas storage is around 67% full, described by Reuters as a record low for this time of year and below the EU’s 80% December target. (BOE Report)

Shell’s Cederic Cremers has described European storage levels entering late autumn as historically low. (BOE Report)

Shell expects LNG sales to grow by around 4–5% annually through 2030 and describes LNG as central to its Integrated Gas strategy. (Shell)

Shell’s 2026 LNG Outlook estimates that global LNG demand could rise to nearly 700 million tonnes annually by 2050. (Shell)

What remains uncertain

The duration of disruption through the Strait of Hormuz remains uncertain.

The severity of the coming northern-hemisphere winter is unknown.

Future LNG prices cannot be predicted with confidence.

The extent to which Asian demand destruction proves temporary or structural is also uncertain.

And Shell’s suggestion that normalisation could take well into 2027 should be understood as an industry assessment based on current conditions, not a guaranteed timetable.

Sources

Reuters, 16 September 2026: Shell and Equinor warn that global energy-market “shock absorbers” are weakening; includes Shell’s estimate of 36 million tonnes of lost LNG and 1.6 billion barrels of lost crude oil and condensates. (London South East)

Reuters report — Energy market shock absorbers weakening, Shell and Equinor warn

Reuters, 16 September 2026: European gas storage at approximately 67%; Shell Integrated Gas President Cederic Cremers warns of historically low stocks entering winter. (BOE Report)

Reuters report — Global LNG prices could spike this winter on low European gas stocks

Shell LNG Outlook 2026: Shell’s assessment of global LNG supply, disruption through Hormuz and long-term demand growth. (Shell)

Shell LNG Outlook 2026

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025: LNG sales, Integrated Gas performance and Shell’s 4–5% annual LNG sales growth target through 2030. (Shell)

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025

Reuters, 15 September 2026: Asian LNG demand weakened as high prices encouraged fuel switching and reduced purchases. (BOE Report)

Reuters market analysis, 16 September 2026: Asian September LNG imports expected to be the weakest for that month in eight years. (BOE Report)

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Shell Warns the World Is Running Out of Energy “Shock Absorbers” — 36 Million Tonnes of LNG Already Missing was first posted on September 18, 2026 at 9:28 am.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 17 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-060 The Sakhalin Papers L: The Exit — Shell Walks Away, Moscow Rewrites the Ownership and Sakhalin II Enters a New Era On 28 February 2022, Shell announced that it would leave Sakhalin II. Within weeks its directors had resigned from the venture and its managerial and technical personnel were being withdrawn. Then the legal structure itself changed. A Russian presidential decree transferred the project’s licences, rights and obligations from the Bermuda-incorporated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company into a newly created Russian company. Shell declined to join it. The Japanese shareholders stayed. More than four years later, Shell still records an interest in the old Bermuda company — and the financial and legal consequences of the exit remain the subject of litigation in Moscow.

1. Four days that changed Shell’s Russian strategy

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

Four days later, on 28 February, Shell plc announced that its Board intended to withdraw from its joint ventures with Gazprom and related Russian entities.

The announcement specifically included:

Shell’s 27.5% minus one share interest in Sakhalin II;

its 50% interest in Salym Petroleum Development;

the Gydan Energy venture;

and its involvement in Nord Stream 2.

Shell said the decision had been taken in response to the invasion and that it would work through the commercial and energy-supply consequences while complying with sanctions. (Shell)

This was the beginning of the end of Shell’s direct participation in Sakhalin II.

It was not yet the end of its legal interest.

2. Sakhalin II had been one of Shell’s most important Russian assets

At the time Shell announced its withdrawal, Sakhalin II was not a marginal investment.

It was a large integrated oil and gas development containing offshore production platforms, pipelines running the length of Sakhalin Island, an oil-export terminal and Russia’s first LNG plant.

Before the 2022 upheaval, ownership of the operating company was:

Gazprom — 50% plus one share

Shell — 27.5% minus one share

Mitsui — 12.5%

Mitsubishi — 10%

Shell had spent decades helping develop the project and remained a major technical participant even after Gazprom had acquired control in 2007. (Yahoo Finance)

The decision to leave therefore represented much more than the disposal of a passive financial holding.

It meant unwinding one of Shell’s longest and most technically significant relationships in Russia.

3. Shell widened the withdrawal eight days later

On 8 March 2022, Shell announced a broader phased withdrawal from Russian hydrocarbons.

The company said it intended to withdraw from Russian crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas and LNG and would close its Russian service-station, aviation-fuel and lubricants operations.

The announcement came after Shell had faced criticism for purchasing a cargo of Russian crude oil after the invasion. Shell acknowledged that the purchase had been a mistake and said it would stop spot purchases of Russian crude. (Shell)

For Sakhalin II, however, the central problem was more complicated.

A petrol station can be sold.

A minority interest in a strategically important Russian LNG project governed by a production-sharing agreement is considerably harder to unwind.

4. Shell began withdrawing the people as well as the capital

Shell’s subsequent SEC filings provide unusually clear evidence of what happened inside the project.

The company states that, from 1 April 2022, it had lost significant influence over Sakhalin II.

Why?

Because Shell’s executive directors resigned and its managerial and technical personnel were withdrawn.

From that date, Shell stopped accounting for Sakhalin Energy as an associate under the equity method and instead treated the investment as a financial asset measured at fair value. (SEC)

Contemporaneous Bloomberg reporting independently recorded Shell withdrawing dozens of employees assigned to Sakhalin II during April. (Bloomberg)

The documentary sequence is therefore clear:

the Board announced the exit;

the directors left;

technical and managerial personnel were withdrawn;

and Shell formally concluded that it no longer exercised significant influence over the venture.

5. The financial hit arrived immediately

Shell’s first-quarter 2022 reporting recorded an impairment charge of:

US$1.614 billion

against the Sakhalin II investment.

Shell explained that the recoverable amount had been estimated principally by reference to risk-adjusted dividends declared from Sakhalin Energy’s 2021 results. (SEC)

This was not Shell’s total Russia-related charge.

Its 2022 annual accounts later recorded net pre-tax charges of US$4.170 billion associated with withdrawal from Russian oil and gas activities, including Sakhalin II, Nord Stream 2, Salym, Gydan and other Russian exposures.

The Sakhalin II impairment was one component of that larger total. (Shell)

That distinction matters.

The US$4.17 billion figure should not be presented as a Sakhalin II loss.

The authenticated accounting record attributes US$1.614 billion specifically to Sakhalin II.

6. Shell still received a dividend

Exit did not mean that every financial connection ceased immediately.

Reuters reported in July 2022 that Shell had received approximately US$165 million in April relating to Sakhalin Energy’s 2021 profits.

Shell explained that the dividend could be received because Sakhalin Energy Investment Company was incorporated in Bermuda. (euronews)

The payment illustrates the strange transitional position.

Shell had announced that it was leaving.

Its directors and personnel were being withdrawn.

The investment had been impaired.

Yet the existing corporate structure had not disappeared, and historical financial entitlements were still being processed.

That would change dramatically on 30 June.

7. Shell first tried to find a buyer

Before the Russian government changed the ownership structure, Shell was attempting a more conventional commercial exit.

Reuters reported on 26 May 2022 that Shell was in discussions with a consortium of Indian energy companies, including ONGC Videsh and GAIL, concerning a possible purchase of its 27.5% interest.

The same discussions reportedly included Shell’s long-term LNG and crude-oil arrangements connected with Sakhalin II.

Reuters stressed that any sale would require Moscow’s approval and that there was no certainty the negotiations would produce a transaction. (Business Standard)

This chronology is important.

Shell’s stated intention was to dispose of its interest.

It had begun looking for purchasers.

Then the Russian state changed the structure under which the project itself operated.

8. Presidential Decree No. 416

On 30 June 2022, President Vladimir Putin signed Decree No. 416, formally titled:

“On the application of special economic measures in the fuel and energy sector in connection with the unfriendly actions of certain foreign states and international organisations.”

The decree is an authenticated Russian legal instrument published through the official legal-information system. (Pravo Publication)

Its consequences for Sakhalin II were fundamental.

The rights and obligations of the existing Bermuda-incorporated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company were to be transferred to a newly created Russian limited liability company.

The project assets were to pass into Russian state ownership and be made available to the new entity.

Gazprom’s participation would continue.

The other shareholders would be required to decide whether they wished to participate in the new Russian company. (Yahoo Finance)

This was no longer a conventional corporate divestment process.

The state had rewritten the structure through which ownership and operation would continue.

9. Foreign shareholders had to apply to remain

Under the decree, the foreign shareholders were given a defined period in which to request equivalent interests in the replacement Russian entity.

The Russian government would then decide whether those requests should be approved.

If a foreign shareholder did not participate — or was not permitted to participate — the corresponding interest could be sold, with proceeds placed into a special account subject to the mechanisms established by the decree.

The decree also permitted claims for alleged damage connected with implementation of the production-sharing agreement to affect what might ultimately be paid. (Yahoo Finance)

That mechanism would eventually become extremely important for Shell.

Its consequences are still visible in Shell’s accounts and current Russian litigation.

10. What the decree did — and did not — establish

The nature of this document needs careful description.

Decree No. 416 was an executive act of the Russian presidency.

It was not a judgment issued after litigation between Shell and the Russian state.

The decree did not constitute a court finding that Shell had breached the Sakhalin II production-sharing agreement.

It did not determine damages against Shell.

It established a new legal structure and a mechanism for dealing with foreign shareholder interests.

Later Russian litigation would raise separate allegations about Shell’s conduct.

Those allegations should not be retrospectively treated as findings contained in the 2022 decree.

11. Shell’s chief executive said it was unlikely to join

On 28 July 2022, then chief executive Ben van Beurden publicly addressed the new structure.

He said it was “highly unlikely” that Shell would become a member of the Russian legal entity created to replace the old operator.

He said joining the new company would be inconsistent with Shell’s stated intention to leave Russia. (Interfax)

That position was later confirmed.

Shell did not take an interest in the replacement Russian operator.

The Japanese shareholders made a different decision.

12. Mitsui and Mitsubishi stayed

The contrast is significant.

Japan depended heavily on imported LNG, and Sakhalin II was an important source.

Mitsui and Mitsubishi therefore chose to seek equivalent stakes in the new Russian entity.

At the end of August 2022, the Russian government approved:

Mitsui’s 12.5% interest

and

Mitsubishi’s 10% interest

in the replacement operator. (Investing.com UK)

Reuters reported that the Japanese government had encouraged continued participation because of Sakhalin II’s importance to Japan’s energy security. (The Japan Times)

Three foreign shareholders had therefore faced essentially the same new structure.

Two chose continuity.

Shell chose exit.

13. The new operator was established

The replacement company, Sakhalin Energy LLC, was registered in Russia in August 2022 and took over operation of Sakhalin II.

Contemporaneous reporting records that customers also began receiving replacement LNG contracts from the new company.

Japanese utilities continued negotiating or renewing arrangements for Sakhalin II cargoes. (Investing.com)

Operationally, the project therefore continued.

Shell’s departure did not mean Sakhalin II ceased producing oil and LNG.

What changed was Shell’s relationship with it.

14. Shell’s LNG supply stopped

The separation became more tangible in the third quarter of 2022.

Shell’s annual accounts state that it still held two long-term LNG purchase contracts with Russian entities, but that a counterparty under one of those contracts stopped delivering cargoes during the third quarter.

Shell CFO Sinead Gorman subsequently confirmed that the affected contract concerned Sakhalin II. (Shell)

Thus by late 2022 Shell had lost not only management influence and participation in the new operating company.

It had also stopped receiving LNG under the relevant Sakhalin arrangement.

15. Shell objected to the transfer

Shell’s later public reporting makes another important point.

Although Shell declined to join the new Russian entity, that did not mean it accepted the extinguishment of every legal right associated with its original investment.

Its subsequent reporting stated that it objected to the transfer and reserved its rights.

This is reflected particularly clearly in Shell’s later description of the old company.

As recently as its 2025 Form 20-F, filed in March 2026, Shell stated that it still holds a 27.5% minus one share interest in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd, the Bermuda entity.

Shell added that this entity “purportedly no longer holds any licences, rights and obligations in Sakhalin-2.” (SEC)

That wording is legally significant.

Shell’s old corporate interest did not simply vanish from its records.

What disappeared was the old company’s effective control of the Sakhalin II project.

16. A corporate shell after the operating assets moved

This creates an unusual corporate position.

Before June 2022:

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd held the relevant project rights and operated Sakhalin II.

After the Russian decree:

those rights and obligations were transferred, under Russian law, to Sakhalin Energy LLC.

Shell declined to become a shareholder of that replacement Russian company.

Yet Shell continues to record ownership of its shares in the Bermuda-incorporated predecessor.

This distinction is essential to understanding later disputes.

Shell did not simply sell its original shares to Gazprom.

The operating project moved into a new legal vehicle.

Shell remained outside it.

17. The legal afterlife: Russia later sued Shell

The story did not end in 2022.

On 2 October 2024, Russia’s Prosecutor General filed proceedings in the Moscow Arbitration Court against eight Shell-group entities, including Shell plc and Shell Energy Europe Limited.

The case is identified in public legal databases as:

Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation v Shell plc and others

Case No. A40-241354/2024. (ПРАВО.Ru)

Shell’s authenticated annual reporting describes what the Russian prosecutor is seeking.

According to Shell, the prosecutor alleges that Shell unlawfully abandoned support for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company.

The prosecutor also seeks approximately €1.5 billion from Shell Energy Europe for alleged unpaid gas deliveries during 2022.

And the claim seeks access to approximately 94 billion roubles said to have been reserved for Shell as compensation for its Sakhalin interest, so that those funds can be offset against part of the alleged debt. (SEC)

These are allegations in pending litigation.

They are not established findings of liability.

18. The proceedings remain unresolved in Shell’s latest annual report

The Moscow proceedings have been conducted behind closed doors, with participants citing confidential and commercially sensitive information.

Public reporting recorded repeated adjournments during 2025. (Interfax.ru)

Most importantly, Shell’s 2025 Annual Report and Accounts, published on 12 March 2026, still described the proceedings as ongoing.

Shell stated that it could not reliably estimate either the magnitude or timing of any potential obligation and said there remained substantial uncertainty regarding the eventual outcome. (Shell)

That is the most recent authenticated Shell position located for this instalment.

Accordingly, this archive does not treat the Russian prosecutor’s case as resolved.

19. The accounting record tells the story almost clinically

Corporate accounts often reveal major historical ruptures in remarkably unemotional language.

In Shell’s case the sequence appears as a set of accounting events:

February 2022: intention to exit.

First quarter 2022: US$1.614 billion Sakhalin II impairment.

1 April 2022: significant influence lost after directors resigned and staff withdrew.

Second quarter: dividend received and value reassessed.

30 June: Russian presidential decree transfers project rights to a new entity.

Third quarter: Sakhalin-linked LNG cargo deliveries cease.

Year end: Shell remains holder of an interest in the old Bermuda vehicle but no longer participates in the replacement operator. (Shell)

Behind those accounting entries lay the end of nearly three decades of Shell involvement in one of Russia’s most important international energy developments.

Documentary Findings

Established: Shell announced on 28 February 2022 that it intended to exit its 27.5%-minus-one-share Sakhalin II interest following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (Shell)

Established: Shell recorded a US$1.614 billion impairment against the Sakhalin II investment in the first quarter of 2022. (SEC)

Established: Shell concluded that it lost significant influence over Sakhalin II from 1 April 2022 following resignation of its executive directors and withdrawal of managerial and technical staff. (SEC)

Established: Shell was actively exploring a commercial sale of its Sakhalin interest before the Russian ownership structure was changed. (Business Standard)

Established: Russian Presidential Decree No. 416 of 30 June 2022 created a new Russian structure to which Sakhalin II rights and obligations were transferred. (Pravo Publication)

Established: Shell chose not to become a shareholder in the replacement Russian entity, while Mitsui and Mitsubishi elected to remain and received approval for equivalent interests. (euronews)

Established: Sakhalin-linked LNG deliveries to Shell stopped during the third quarter of 2022. (Interfax)

Established: Shell continues to record ownership of a 27.5%-minus-one-share interest in the original Bermuda-incorporated Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, while stating that the entity purportedly no longer holds the project licences, rights and obligations. (SEC)

Established: Russian prosecutors subsequently brought proceedings against Shell entities arising in part from the 2022 exit and alleged unpaid gas deliveries. Shell’s March 2026 annual report states that those proceedings remain ongoing. (Shell)

Not established: Decree No. 416 did not constitute a judicial finding that Shell had breached the production-sharing agreement.

Not established: The Russian prosecutor’s later allegations have not been treated in this file as proven facts.

Not established: The documentary record examined here does not establish that Shell voluntarily sold its Sakhalin II interest to Gazprom in 2022.

Commentary

The most important feature of the 2022 Sakhalin exit is that there was no single moment when Shell simply handed over the keys.

The break occurred in stages.

First came the political decision to leave.

Then the directors resigned.

Then the technical and managerial presence was withdrawn.

Then the investment was impaired.

Shell tried to find a buyer.

Then Moscow replaced the project’s legal structure.

Shell declined to enter the replacement company.

Then its LNG supply disappeared.

And years later the old Bermuda company — still partly owned by Shell — remained on Shell’s books while holding, in Shell’s formulation, no effective Sakhalin II licences or operating rights.

That is not the pattern of an ordinary divestment.

Nor should it automatically be described as a simple confiscation without explaining the underlying legal mechanics.

The primary documents show something more complex:

Shell announced that it wanted to leave before the Russian restructuring occurred.

Russia then dictated the structure under which ownership would continue.

Shell refused to participate in that structure.

The financial value attached to the abandoned interest was subsequently determined within the Russian system rather than through a negotiated Shell sale.

Those distinctions matter because they explain why the consequences were still unresolved years later.

The Sakhalin story had begun as one of Shell’s great technical ambitions.

It became an environmental controversy.

Then a struggle over Russian control.

Then a mature LNG business.

Finally, in 2022, war and sanctions ended Shell’s operational participation.

But even that was not quite the end.

A company can leave a country more quickly than it can unwind decades of contracts, ownership structures and legal rights.

The Sakhalin papers make that unusually clear.

Source Record

The principal authenticated Shell announcement is “Shell intends to exit equity partnerships held with Gazprom entities,” 28 February 2022, confirming Shell’s intention to leave its 27.5% Sakhalin II interest and its other Gazprom-linked ventures. (Shell)

Shell — intention to exit Gazprom partnerships, 28 February 2022

Shell’s 2022 Form 20-F and interim SEC filings provide the principal accounting record: the US$1.614 billion Sakhalin II impairment, loss of significant influence from 1 April, resignation of directors, withdrawal of managerial and technical staff and subsequent treatment of the investment. (Shell)

Shell Form 20-F 2022

The principal Russian legal record is Presidential Decree No. 416 of 30 June 2022, officially published by the Russian legal-information system. (Pravo Publication)

Russian Presidential Decree No. 416 — official publication record

Contemporaneous Reuters reporting records the mechanics of the decree, including creation of the new company and the process governing foreign shareholder participation. (Yahoo Finance)

Reuters — Russia will replace Sakhalin-2 project operator with new firm, 30 June 2022

Reuters also documented Shell’s attempt to find an Indian buyer before the restructuring. (Business Standard)

Reuters — Shell in talks with Indian consortium over Sakhalin II stake, May 2022

Contemporaneous reporting records the decisions by Mitsui and Mitsubishi to remain in the replacement Russian company. (euronews)

Shell’s latest authenticated position is contained in the Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025, published 12 March 2026. It states that Shell still holds its interest in the Bermuda-incorporated predecessor company and records the continuing Moscow litigation arising from the Sakhalin exit and alleged 2022 gas debts. (SEC)

Shell Annual Report and Accounts 2025

The related Russian court proceedings are identified publicly as Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation v Shell plc and others, Case No. A40-241354/2024. (Jus Mundi)

Archive disclaimer: This instalment distinguishes Russian executive measures, Shell corporate decisions and later litigation. Allegations made by the Russian prosecutor are identified as allegations and are not treated as judicially established facts. Figures relating to Shell’s Russian withdrawal are separated from the specific Sakhalin II impairment. The article does not characterise the 2022 presidential decree as a court judgment.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers LI: The Billion-Rouble Exit Price — Novatek, Gazprom and the US$1 Billion Shell Still Could Not Simply Collect

In April 2023, the Russian government valued the unclaimed 27.5% interest in the replacement Sakhalin Energy company at:

94.8 billion roubles

and approved Novatek as the purchaser. (Interfax)

Shell’s response was revealing.

Its CFO said:

“No payments have been made and we retain our legal rights.” (Interfax)

Then the proposed buyer changed.

In March 2024, the Russian government cancelled the Novatek arrangement and approved a Gazprom-owned company as purchaser — for the same 94.8 billion roubles. (Interfax)

And the money did not simply arrive in Shell’s London bank account.

It became entangled with Russia’s special-account regime and eventually with the €1.5 billion claim now being pursued against Shell in Moscow.

The next file follows the money:

Who decided what Shell’s Sakhalin stake was worth, where did the 94.8 billion roubles go, and why — years after Shell announced its departure — does the company still describe the legal and financial outcome as uncertain?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 17 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 17, 2026 at 10:03 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

High Court ruling allows Bille community to argue that Shell is responsible for all relevant oil pollution in the region — including pollution that cannot be traced to one of 106 individually identified spills

A major new dimension has emerged in the long-running litigation over Shell-related oil pollution in Nigeria’s Niger Delta.

On 10 September 2026, Mrs Justice Lambert handed down judgment in Alame & Ors v Shell Plc & Anor [2026] EWHC 2332 (KB).

Much attention has understandably focused on another part of the ruling: allegations that Shell witnesses knowingly relied upon false or misleading factual assertions during the company’s earlier jurisdiction challenge are now to be dealt with as the litigation moves towards trial.

That development was examined in our earlier article, “Shell Nigeria Case Takes a Dramatic Turn: High Court Allows Allegations of Misleading Evidence to Be Tried.”

But the same judgment contains another ruling which may ultimately prove just as significant.

The High Court has rejected Shell’s attempt to prevent the Bille community from advancing what the judgment describes as its “primary” or “all-spills” case.

In simple terms, the claimants will be permitted to argue at the 2027 trial that Shell and its former Nigerian subsidiary are responsible not merely for pollution attributable to 106 specifically identified spills, but for all relevant oil pollution in the Bille region during the period covered by the claims.

That does not mean that the court has decided that Shell is responsible for all such pollution.

It emphatically has not.

What the court has decided is that the claimants are entitled to try to prove that case.

That distinction is crucial.

The case has moved far beyond 106 spills

The Bille litigation concerns oil pollution associated with pipelines, wellheads and other infrastructure in the Niger Delta between 2011 and 2013.

Following earlier procedural battles, the claimants were required to particularise their case in much greater detail.

The resulting pleadings identify 106 individual spills.

But there is a striking detail in the judgment.

Of those 106 spills, 60 had been identified by the defendants and given incident numbers.

A further 46 spills had not been identified by the defendants and were instead identified by the claimants during the forensic process.

Mrs Justice Lambert recorded that the claimants had produced individual annexes dealing with each of the 106 spills and setting out the systemic failures alleged to have caused or contributed to them.

Those alleged failures include matters concerning:

• pipeline and infrastructure integrity;
• leak detection;
• maintenance and repair;
• protection against third-party interference and illegal bunkering;
• spill containment;
• remediation and clean-up.

These remain allegations which Shell is entitled to contest at trial.

But the claimants’ case does not stop with the 106 spills.

The “all-spills” argument

The claimants contend that evidence concerning those identified spills may permit the court to draw wider inferences about pollution in Bille that cannot be attributed to any individually identified incident.

In other words, if contamination is found in an area and cannot be traced to one of the 106 specifically pleaded spills, the claimants want to be able to argue that it nevertheless resulted from another unidentified spill for which the defendants were responsible.

Shell opposed that approach.

The defendants argued that the claimants should be confined to the 106 identified spills and to damage which could be traced back to those specific events.

Had Shell succeeded, pollution that could not be connected to an individually identified spill would potentially have fallen outside the claimants’ case.

Mrs Justice Lambert rejected that restriction.

The claimants are therefore entitled to advance their broader case.

Doughty Street Chambers, whose Joshua Jackson acts for the claimants, summarised the effect of the ruling on 14 September:

the Bille community may argue that Shell is responsible for all oil pollution in the relevant region even where residents cannot identify every individual spill which produced that pollution.

That is a substantial development.

What the judge did — and did not — decide

The ruling should not be misunderstood.

Mrs Justice Lambert has not found that Shell caused every spill in Bille.

She has not found that every area of pollution came from Shell-operated infrastructure.

She has not decided whether sabotage, theft, illegal refining or other third-party activities caused particular spills.

Those are matters for evidence and trial.

The judgment instead deals with whether the claimants are legally and procedurally entitled to put their broader causation case before the court.

The judge concluded that they are.

Her reasoning illustrates why the eventual evidence will matter so much.

If, hypothetically, the evidence relating to the 106 identified spills showed that the defendants were responsible for virtually all of them and there were no credible competing sources for the remaining pollution, that evidence could potentially support an inference concerning unidentified spills.

If, on the other hand, the evidence presented a substantially mixed picture involving different causes and different responsible parties, drawing such a broad inference could become much more difficult.

The claimants therefore have permission to make the argument.

They still have to prove it.

Almost 300,000 documents

There is another important part of the chronology.

According to Doughty Street Chambers, an earlier High Court disclosure order resulted in Shell providing the claimants with almost 300,000 documents by January 2026.

After that disclosure exercise, the claimants were required to provide detailed particulars concerning parent-company liability, fault and causation.

Their expanded pleadings followed.

That sequence matters.

This is no longer a case being argued principally from general assertions about pollution in the Niger Delta.

The approaching trial will take place after a very large disclosure exercise and after years of forensic examination of the underlying events.

The identification by the claimants of 46 additional spills which had apparently not previously been given incident numbers by the defendants provides one indication of what that forensic process has produced.

A second explosive issue sits alongside the pollution case

The same September judgment also dealt with the claimants’ application concerning aggravated damages.

The claimants allege, among other matters, that Shell knowingly relied upon false or misleading factual assertions from witnesses during the jurisdiction proceedings that occupied the English courts between 2016 and 2021.

Shell had been arguing during those proceedings that its Nigerian subsidiary operated independently of the London-based parent company.

The jurisdiction dispute ultimately reached the UK Supreme Court, which in 2021 allowed the Nigerian communities’ claims against Royal Dutch Shell plc — now Shell plc — to proceed in England.

The current claimants now allege that evidence presented during that jurisdiction battle was false or misleading.

They also make allegations concerning the deletion or destruction of relevant evidence.

Again, these are allegations.

There has been no judicial finding that Shell, any Shell witness, or any lawyer deliberately misled a court or improperly destroyed evidence.

Shell contests the allegations.

But Mrs Justice Lambert rejecte

From 106 Known Spills to an Entire Polluted Region: Shell Faces a Much Broader Nigeria Trial in 2027 was first posted on September 16, 2026 at 7:01 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 15 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-058 The Sakhalin Papers XLVIII: “A Philosophical Difference” — When Regulatory Compliance Was Not Enough for the Scientists In November 2020, Sakhalin Energy and its independent scientific advisers arrived at an unusually candid point of disagreement. The company could satisfy Russian regulatory requirements and still fail to satisfy the evidential standards expected by the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel. The meeting record captured the difference in a phrase rarely encountered in corporate environmental reporting: there would always be a “philosophical difference” between conservation scientists and an oil company.

1. A meeting held in exceptional circumstances

The 21st meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel — WGWAP — took place by videoconference from 17 to 19 November 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

By then the Panel had spent well over a decade advising Sakhalin Energy on the protection of the endangered gray whales feeding off north-eastern Sakhalin.

Shell’s own Sustainability Report 2020 described WGWAP as an independent scientific panel established by IUCN to help mitigate environmental impacts. Shell stated that the Panel continued to advise Sakhalin Energy, in which Shell then held a 27.5% interest, and that WGWAP was preparing its final conclusions for release in 2021. (Shell)

This matters.

The dispute examined in this instalment was not between Shell and an environmental protest organisation standing outside the project.

It occurred inside the independent scientific-advisory mechanism that Shell itself cited in its sustainability reporting.

2. The company had data — lots of it

There was no suggestion that Sakhalin Energy had simply stopped studying whales.

Its monitoring programme was extensive.

Sakhalin Energy’s own 2020 sustainability reporting stated that the company and the Sakhalin-1 operator continued their integrated monitoring programme off north-eastern Sakhalin, which had begun in 2002.

The company reported that 175 individual whales were preliminarily identified during the 2020 field season, including nine calves and two previously unidentified adults.

It also reported acoustic monitoring at the boundary of the Piltun feeding area and said the measurements indicated a low level of anthropogenic noise from company facilities. (Sakhalin Energy)

WGWAP likewise acknowledged extensive monitoring and treated the annual photo-identification reports as useful.

The dispute was not primarily about whether information existed.

It was about what conclusions could legitimately be drawn from it.

3. Counting whales was not the same as estimating a population trend

The 2020 WGWAP report records a fundamental methodological disagreement.

Sakhalin Energy’s reporting had characterised the feeding aggregation in strongly positive terms.

The Panel considered the underlying surveys insufficient to support such broad conclusions.

Its concern was that annual counts, locations and observations were being treated too readily as evidence of population stability or growth without sufficiently rigorous adjustment for matters such as survey effort, timing, observation-platform characteristics, observer capability and environmental conditions.

WGWAP therefore recommended a proper multi-year statistical analysis before strong claims were made about abundance and distribution.

That distinction is elementary but important.

More whales seen during one survey does not necessarily mean more whales exist.

A vessel can change.

Observers can change.

Survey routes can change.

Weather can change.

Timing can change.

The amount of effort can change.

Without accounting for those variables, apparent trends can be misleading.

4. Then came the remarkable exchange

The Panel said Sakhalin Energy’s reports appeared to satisfy Russian regulatory requirements.

But it also said the potential of the accumulated datasets was being under-used and that some conclusions were therefore insufficiently supported.

According to the official meeting record, Sakhalin Energy representative Jane Alcock accepted that there would always be a:

“philosophical difference between the goals of conservation scientists and those of an oil company.”

The minutes went on to explain the distinction.

One of the company’s objectives was compliance with the regulatory requirements under which it operated. It was therefore unsurprising, in Alcock’s view, that company reporting might not satisfy every scientific standard expected by WGWAP.

This was not an accusation extracted from a leaked activist memorandum.

It appears in the formal WGWAP meeting report.

And it is unusually revealing.

5. Compliance and knowledge are different tests

A regulator asks:

Has the operator met the legally required standard?

A conservation scientist may ask:

Do we understand what is happening to the ecosystem well enough to detect a subtle or long-term effect?

Those are related questions.

They are not identical.

The distinction becomes especially important when dealing with endangered wildlife.

Regulatory compliance may establish that an operator has carried out the prescribed surveys and mitigation.

Scientific confidence requires something different: sufficient data, appropriate controls, rigorous analysis and enough continuity to distinguish genuine biological change from statistical noise.

That is the heart of the 2020 disagreement.

6. The missing seabed data returned to the argument

The previous instalment examined the disappearance of long-term benthic monitoring after 2016.

That issue resurfaced directly in 2020.

WGWAP said the lost benthic time series made it substantially harder to interpret the reduced presence of whales in the nearshore Piltun feeding ground.

Sakhalin Energy maintained that it should not be expected to collect benthic information outside the area in which its activities could potentially affect the seabed.

That difference goes directly to the meaning of environmental responsibility.

The company’s position defined responsibility principally by reference to its potential operational footprint.

The Panel’s scientific question was wider:

What information is necessary to explain what is happening to the whales?

Those two boundaries were not the same.

7. The 2019 prey warning still hung over the discussion

This disagreement cannot be understood without the warning WGWAP had issued the previous year.

On 11 July 2019, IUCN publicly reported the Panel’s concern that the nearshore Piltun feeding area might be losing its capacity to support recovering gray whales.

The long-running benthic programme had shown a steep decline in amphipod prey biomass before monitoring was terminated in 2016.

At the same time, whales appeared increasingly to be using the more productive offshore feeding area. (IUCN)

WGWAP did not claim that Shell or Sakhalin Energy had caused the prey decline.

Natural oceanographic and ecological explanations remained entirely plausible.

But without continuing benthic measurements, it became harder to distinguish competing explanations.

That evidential gap was exactly what the Panel was still complaining about in November 2020.

8. Noise produced another disagreement over the strength of the evidence

Sakhalin Energy deserved credit for restarting some acoustic monitoring in 2020.

WGWAP expressly welcomed that decision.

Preliminary information suggested underwater noise had decreased, possibly in part because quieter service vessels had been introduced.

But the Panel objected to a categorical statement in Sakhalin Energy’s Marine Mammal Protection Plan that the company’s noise-generating activities had produced no effect on gray-whale abundance and distribution.

WGWAP considered the analysis insufficient to prove such a definitive proposition.

Again, the distinction is subtle but fundamental.

Failure to demonstrate an effect is not necessarily evidence that no effect exists.

That is particularly true where data were collected at incompatible temporal or spatial scales.

9. Sakhalin Energy had spent very large sums on mitigation

The meeting record also contains evidence that deserves to be placed firmly on the company side of the ledger.

Sakhalin Energy presented a high-level self-assessment of its compliance with International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 6, which concerns biodiversity and critical habitat.

According to that assessment, the company had spent more than US$300 million on impact avoidance and more than US$45 million on mitigation since the project design phase.

Sakhalin Energy concluded that its remaining impacts on gray whales had been reduced to levels it regarded as not significant and not measurable, and that it had complied with the principal requirements of the standard.

Those figures are part of the documentary record.

They should not be omitted merely because this archive is critical of Shell.

10. But “not measurable” was itself disputed

The Panel discussion immediately exposed the difficulty.

There was broad agreement that industrial operations at Sakhalin had not produced demonstrated acute lethal impacts on gray whales.

But WGWAP participants said there was no equivalent consensus concerning possible non-lethal chronic effects.

A biological effect could be real but too small, diffuse or complex to measure reliably.

And because Sakhalin Energy operated in critical habitat, the possibility of residual effects remained relevant even after substantial mitigation.

This is an important evidential distinction.

Not measured is not synonymous with non-existent.

Nor does the converse follow.

An inability to exclude a chronic effect does not prove that such an effect occurred.

The correct documentary position is uncertainty.

11. The argument therefore cut both ways

It would be misleading to portray the November 2020 record as scientists discovering environmental damage that Sakhalin Energy was trying to conceal.

That is not what the documents establish.

The company had financed extensive monitoring.

It had implemented significant mitigation.

It had restarted acoustic monitoring.

It had accumulated decades of whale observations.

Its own sustainability reporting continued to treat gray-whale conservation as an important environmental programme. (Sakhalin Energy)

But it would be equally misleading to convert those facts into a conclusion that every environmental question had therefore been scientifically resolved.

WGWAP plainly did not think so.

12. This is where the “philosophical difference” really mattered

Sakhalin Energy had to operate a major oil and gas project.

That meant engineering targets, production targets, safety obligations, regulatory requirements, financial constraints and environmental conditions.

WGWAP had a narrower institutional purpose.

Its task was to ask whether available science was sufficient to protect an endangered whale population.

Those missions overlapped.

They did not coincide.

What an operator regarded as enough information to demonstrate compliance could still be regarded by scientists as insufficient to resolve an ecological question.

And what scientists regarded as desirable long-term research could reasonably be regarded by an operator as extending beyond the impacts for which it considered itself responsible.

The November 2020 exchange is valuable precisely because neither side disguised that structural difference.

13. It was disagreement without institutional breakdown

The documentary record also prevents a more sensational interpretation.

The meeting did not end in rupture.

At its conclusion, representatives of WGWAP, Sakhalin Energy and IUCN all acknowledged the value of the process.

The Panel report described WGWAP as having provided a forum for frank, constructive and transparent exchanges which had often produced workable solutions to difficult problems.

That matters.

Independent scientific oversight is not proven effective because company and scientists always agree.

Arguably the opposite is true.

A panel that never disagreed with the company financing the process would deserve considerably more scrutiny.

14. Shell’s own public reporting confirms the relationship

Royal Dutch Shell plc’s authenticated Sustainability Report 2020 presented the IUCN relationship positively.

It stated that IUCN had been Shell’s global biodiversity partner for more than twenty years and that WGWAP continued advising Sakhalin Energy on assessing and managing its effects on western gray whales.

Shell also reported that the Panel was approaching the end of its mandate. (Shell)

Thus the criticisms in WGWAP-21 cannot sensibly be dismissed as observations by an organisation hostile to Shell.

They arose from the very independent advisory mechanism Shell highlighted in its own sustainability report.

15. The High Court record remains historical context only

The English litigation surrounding Sakhalin II belongs in the background.

In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting dealt with access to environmental information concerning proposed British export-credit support for the project.

The judgment records the scale of the financing request and the environmental controversy surrounding Sakhalin II. The High Court dismissed ECGD’s appeal against disclosure. (vLex)

But the limits must again be explicit.

The court did not determine the adequacy of 2020 whale monitoring.

It did not rule on benthic sampling.

It did not decide whether Sakhalin Energy’s acoustic activities affected whale distribution.

It did not interpret IFC Performance Standard 6.

The case is relevant because environmental transparency around Sakhalin II had already reached the British courts more than a decade earlier.

Nothing more should be attributed to it.

Documentary Findings

Established: WGWAP considered Sakhalin Energy’s reports capable of meeting regulatory requirements while still falling below the level of statistical rigour the Panel wanted for some scientific conclusions.

Established: A Sakhalin Energy representative acknowledged a “philosophical difference” between conservation scientists and an oil company concerning objectives and standards of analysis.

Established: The Panel continued to regard the loss of benthic monitoring as scientifically important because it impaired attempts to explain reduced nearshore whale use. Sakhalin Energy maintained that it should not be responsible for collecting benthic data outside the area of its potential impact.

Established: Sakhalin Energy conducted acoustic monitoring in 2020 and WGWAP welcomed its return, but the Panel rejected the evidential basis for a categorical company assertion that noise-generating activities had produced no effect on whale abundance and distribution.

Established: Sakhalin Energy’s IFC PS6 self-assessment cited substantial expenditure on avoidance and mitigation and concluded that residual effects were not significant or measurable. WGWAP discussion recorded continuing uncertainty about possible chronic non-lethal effects.

Not established: The 2020 record does not prove that Shell or Sakhalin Energy caused the decline in nearshore prey.

Not established: It does not prove that Sakhalin Energy’s operations produced population-level damage to western gray whales.

Not established: Nor does the Panel report support a claim that Sakhalin Energy ignored conservation science wholesale. The documentary record contains repeated examples of mitigation, monitoring, expenditure and cooperation.

Commentary

The phrase “philosophical difference” could easily be turned into an accusation.

That would miss its real significance.

The problem identified in these documents is more fundamental than a dispute between good scientists and bad oil executives.

It concerns the boundary between regulatory environmental management and scientific understanding.

A corporation asks what effects it is responsible for measuring and mitigating.

A conservation scientist asks what evidence is necessary to understand the species and its ecosystem.

Sometimes the same dataset answers both questions.

Sometimes it does not.

The benthic argument illustrates the difference perfectly.

From Sakhalin Energy’s perspective, requiring it to collect environmental information beyond the zone of its potential seabed impact could become an open-ended research obligation.

From WGWAP’s perspective, without those wider data scientists might never discover why whales were abandoning part of their traditional feeding habitat.

Both propositions can be rational simultaneously.

What the documents expose is the gap between them.

There is also a larger lesson for corporate environmental reporting.

Statements such as:

no effect

no measurable impact

stable population

and

regulatory compliance

sound definitive.

Scientifically, they may describe very different levels of certainty.

One of the most valuable functions of an independent advisory panel is therefore not merely to recommend mitigation.

It is to challenge the language by which uncertainty gradually becomes corporate fact.

That is exactly what happened at Sakhalin in November 2020.

Source Record

The principal primary record is the Report of the 21st Meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, held 17–19 November 2020. It contains the disagreement over population analysis, the “philosophical difference” exchange, the benthic-monitoring dispute, acoustic-monitoring discussion, Sakhalin Energy’s IFC Performance Standard 6 self-assessment and the Panel’s response.

WGWAP — Report of the 21st Meeting, November 2020

Royal Dutch Shell plc’s authenticated Sustainability Report 2020 confirms Shell’s 27.5% interest in Sakhalin Energy and records that the IUCN-convened WGWAP continued advising the venture on western gray-whale impacts. (Shell)

Royal Dutch Shell plc — Sustainability Report 2020

Sakhalin Energy’s 2020 Sustainable Development Report records continued whale monitoring, preliminary identification of 175 individual whales during the field season and acoustic monitoring at the boundary of the Piltun feeding area. (Sakhalin Energy)

IUCN’s contemporaneous 11 July 2019 public report provides the immediate background to the 2020 benthic dispute and records WGWAP’s concern about declining prey biomass and termination of the long-running benthic programme. (IUCN)

IUCN — Scientific panel calls for investigation of decline in prey of western gray whales, 11 July 2019

The judicial background remains Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin) and is cited solely for the earlier Sakhalin II environmental-information and UK export-credit context. (vLex)

Archive disclaimer: WGWAP was an independent scientific advisory panel, not a court or regulatory authority. Its criticisms of methodology and interpretation were scientific judgments. Sakhalin Energy’s statements concerning compliance, mitigation expenditure and environmental impact are identified as company positions where appropriate. No causal finding against Shell is inferred where the documentary record does not establish one.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers XLIX: “Unfinished Business” — Seventeen Years, More Than 600 Recommendations, and the End of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel

The November 2020 meeting was already preparing for an ending.

The Panel’s mandate was due to conclude in 2021.

Its final meeting took place that November.

Then history intervened.

In early 2022, the Panel set down what it called its “Unfinished Business”: long-term monitoring, transparent data sharing, prey studies, underwater-noise assessment, population modelling and the need for all operators to be judged on the same scientific basis.

It also recorded an extraordinary new uncertainty.

Shell and Exxon were withdrawing from Russia.

The advisory structure painstakingly assembled over seventeen years was disappearing just as the political and corporate foundations of the Sakhalin projects themselves were being transformed. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

The next file examines the final reckoning:

What did seventeen years of independent scientific oversight actually achieve — and what remained unresolved when the Panel closed its files?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 15 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 15, 2026 at 9:46 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Shell Spying, Corporate Intelligence and Security: Documentary Chronology

Four of the most important emails.

1. 24 June 1998 — Richard Wiseman admits the Shell connection to Christopher Phillips.
This moves the story beyond pure allegation.
Read the document

2. 9 July 1998 — Wiseman: “The activities of Mr Phillips have, of course, been admitted.”
A particularly clear contemporaneous formulation. (johndonovan.website)
Read the document

3. 21 March 2007 — Shell’s global monitoring email.
The strongest evidence that Shell later monitored global internal email and website traffic in an effort to identify sources communicating with Donovan. (shellnews.net)
Read the Shell internal email

4. The 2004 Hakluyt/Church of England document bundle.
This provides the personnel links, Hakluyt correspondence and the extraordinary Church of England episode in one place. (shellnews.net)

Shell–Hakluyt master document archive The following chronology brings together correspondence, internal Shell emails, police material, Hakluyt-related documents, Church of England correspondence and later US litigation involving Shell corporate-security personnel.

A critical distinction should be maintained throughout:

Documented: Shell and its lawyers acknowledged the use of Christopher Phillips for enquiries on Shell’s behalf; later Shell internal emails record monitoring of communications and web traffic in an effort to identify internal sources supplying information to the Donovan websites. (johndonovan.website)

Documented connection: senior Shell figures Sir Peter Holmes and Sir William Purves simultaneously held roles connected with Hakluyt during the relevant era, and the 2004 correspondence directly engaged Hakluyt over whether it had any role in the Donovan surveillance allegations. Hakluyt declined to identify its clients or activities. (johndonovan.website)

Not established by the presently available documents: that Hakluyt itself carried out the Christopher Phillips operation, burglaries, threats or every other alleged covert operation against the Donovans.

1997 — senior Shell management kept informed 28 April / 14 May 1997 — Richard Wiseman correspondence

Shell UK Legal Director Richard Wiseman’s correspondence records that senior Shell figures were being kept informed about the Donovan dispute, including figures at Shell UK and Shell Transport. This predates the most intense 1998 undercover episode and is useful for establishing the level at which the dispute was already known inside Shell. (shellnews.net)

Richard Wiseman correspondence index — including 28 April and 14 May 1997 letters

Why it matters: the later surveillance controversy cannot readily be characterised as a dispute known only to junior lawyers or local Shell staff.

1998 — the undercover-investigator sequence

This is the strongest contemporaneous documentary bundle because Shell and its solicitors ultimately acknowledged that Christopher Phillips had been conducting enquiries on Shell’s behalf. The archive also records other alleged undercover contacts, including men presenting themselves as journalists, but Shell denied involvement in the wider intimidation allegations. (johndonovan.website)

9 June 1998 — John Donovan to The European

Written after concerns arose about a purported journalist. It begins the documentary trail concerning persons approaching Donovan witnesses or representatives while claiming media credentials. (johndonovan.website)

1998 correspondence master page — Chapter 5

11 June 1998 — The European responds

The newspaper confirmed concerns about the use of its name by an individual who was not acting for it in the manner represented. This provided contemporaneous independent corroboration that at least one purported journalistic approach was irregular. (johndonovan.website)

Chapter 5 — full correspondence sequence

15 June 1998 — John Donovan to Dr Chris Fay, Shell UK Chairman and CEO

This is one of the most useful early documents. Donovan set out the activities of Charles Hoots, Christopher Phillips, “Daniel Wilson” and an anonymous caller, and alerted senior Shell management to concerns about intimidation and covert enquiries. The letter records the allegations contemporaneously rather than retrospectively.

15 June 1998 letter to Dr Chris Fay

16 June 1998 — DJ Freeman replies on Shell’s behalf

Shell’s solicitors responded to the letter to Dr Fay. At this stage the full Phillips connection had not yet been acknowledged.

DJ Freeman letter, 16 June 1998

18 June 1998 — Royds solicitors to DJ Freeman

This correspondence enclosed enquiries made to Cofton Consultants and pressed Shell’s lawyers about Christopher Phillips. It was part of the sequence that forced the issue into the open.

Royds to DJ Freeman, 18 June 1998

18 June 1998 — John Donovan to Colin Joseph, DJ Freeman

A further direct challenge concerning the investigative activity.

John Donovan to DJ Freeman, 18 June 1998

19–23 June 1998 — solicitor-to-solicitor correspondence

This sequence is significant because Shell’s legal representatives progressively disclosed the nature of Phillips’s role. Chapter 5 preserves the related correspondence in chronological context. (johndonovan.website)

Full 1998 correspondence chronology

23 June 1998 — John Donovan to Shell Group Chairman Mark Moody-Stuart

The controversy was escalated directly to the head of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.

Letter to Mark Moody-Stuart, 23 June 1998

23 June 1998 — John Donovan to Richard Wiseman

This is particularly important because Donovan specifically asked whether Phillips had engaged in surveillance or telephone tapping.

Letter to Richard Wiseman, 23 June 1998

24 June 1998 — DJ Freeman to Royds

Shell’s solicitors described the inquiries into companies associated with Donovan as legitimate financial/credit enquiries.

DJ Freeman to Royds, 24 June 1998

24 June 1998 — Richard Wiseman to John Donovan

A key document. Wiseman confirmed the Shell connection to Phillips but did not answer Donovan’s specific question about whether Phillips’s instructions extended to surveillance or phone tapping. (johndonovan.website)

Richard Wiseman letter, 24 June 1998

25 June 1998 — Royds to DJ Freeman

Donovan’s solicitors characterised Phillips’s dealings with the business-centre receptionist as involving deception. (johndonovan.website)

Royds letter, 25 June 1998

26 June 1998 — Turner Enquiry Services

Private investigators retained by the Donovan side reported on enquiries concerning Phillips and Cofton Consultants. This helps show that the matter was being independently investigated at the time. (shellnews.net)

Master document index containing the Turner correspondence

29 June 1998 — report to Suffolk Police

The Donovan side reported the alleged threats, deceptive approaches and undercover activity to the police. This is important evidence that the accusations were formally raised contemporaneously rather than invented after the litigation. (shellnews.net)

1998 documentary index, including the police correspondence

1 July 1998 — Richard Wiseman to John Donovan

Wiseman wrote that he could find no Shell-company knowledge of Charles Hoots. The letter is useful because it distinguishes Shell’s admitted connection to Phillips from its denial of knowledge concerning other alleged operatives. (johndonovan.website)

Wiseman letter, 1 July 1998

3 July 1998 — DJ Freeman to John Donovan

This is among the strongest documents in the bundle. Shell’s solicitors said that if police wanted information from Shell or anyone involved in enquiries on Shell’s behalf, including Mr Phillips, full cooperation would be given. The wording also indicates that Phillips was not necessarily the only person conducting enquiries. (johndonovan.website)

DJ Freeman letter, 3 July 1998

9 July 1998 — Richard Wiseman to John Donovan

Wiseman expressly stated that Shell and its lawyers denied involvement in the alleged intimidation, while adding that “the activities of Mr Phillips have, of course, been admitted.” (johndonovan.website)

Wiseman letter, 9 July 1998

7 and 11 August 1998 — further DJ Freeman correspondence

These letters form part of the continued dispute about the undercover activity. The 11 August document is cited in the archive as confirmation that Shell had conducted an internal investigation into the matter. (johndonovan.website)

DJ Freeman, 7 August 1998

DJ Freeman, 11 August 1998

16 October 1998 — Suffolk Police

Police correspondence concerning one of the burglary allegations. Shell denied involvement in the burglaries and intimidation allegations.

Suffolk Police letter, 16 October 1998

26 October 1998 — Shell solicitors

The archive records this correspondence as further confirmation that an internal Shell investigation into the undercover controversy had taken place. (johndonovan.website)

DJ Freeman/Shell correspondence archive

2004 — Hakluyt and the Church of England

This strand began when the Donovan family later discovered the extensive overlap between senior Shell figures and Hakluyt, the private intelligence consultancy founded by former intelligence officers. The archival documents establish the Shell/Hakluyt personnel overlap and the correspondence with Hakluyt; they do not, by themselves, prove that Hakluyt conducted the Phillips operation. (johndonovan.website)

4–14 April 2004 — discovery of the Shell/Hakluyt connection

The archived sequence includes correspondence with Shell lawyers and senior Shell figures after the Hakluyt links were discovered. A 5 April letter discusses Charles Hoots and raises expressly the possibility of intelligence connections. Those were allegations by Alfred Donovan, not established findings. (shellnews.net)

April–June 2004 Hakluyt correspondence index

22 April 2004 — Alfred Donovan / Richard Wiseman emails

This exchange revisited Shell’s prior admission concerning investigative activity. It forms the bridge between the 1998 Phillips documents and the later Hakluyt inquiry. (shellnews.net)

Dark Side of Royal Dutch Shell — full correspondence index

26 April 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Richard Wiseman

Follow-up correspondence recording Donovan’s interpretation of Wiseman’s response and the earlier admissions. (johndonovan.website)

Don Marketing archival correspondence

26/27 May 2004 — email to hundreds of MPs

Subject: “HAKLUYT — THE COMMERCIAL ARM OF MI6?”

This circulated the Shell/Hakluyt issue widely among MPs and sought investigation of the connection between Shell and the intelligence consultancy. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Shell/Hakluyt master correspondence page

2 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Hakluyt

A direct request to Hakluyt co-founder Christopher James asking whether Hakluyt had been involved in the Shell-related activities against the Donovans. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Hakluyt correspondence index

2 June 2004 — Intelligence and Security Committee

The ISC acknowledged Donovan’s concerns about Hakluyt and stated that they would be drawn to the attention of committee members. (shellnews.net)

ISC letter, 2 June 2004

3 June 2004 — Church of England Legal Office

This is the extraordinary document in the Church of England strand.

Mike Webster of the Church’s Legal Office contacted Alfred Donovan after the letter intended for Hakluyt appeared on a Church of England fax machine. The eventual explanation centred on Sir Anthony Hammond QC, who had relevant Church legal responsibilities while also being connected with Hakluyt. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Shell/Hakluyt/Church of England correspondence index

4 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to the Intelligence and Security Committee

This letter is particularly useful because it sets out, contemporaneously, why the unexpected Church of England involvement increased Donovan’s concerns. It also recounts the allegations about Hoots and the wider intelligence context. (shellnews.net)

Letter to Intelligence and Security Committee, 4 June 2004

7 June 2004 — Hakluyt correspondence

Hakluyt directly communicated with Alfred Donovan. The fact of communication is established; its significance should not be overstated. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Hakluyt master correspondence page

7 June 2004 — Church of England Legal Office follow-up

A second Church legal-office communication followed, clarifying aspects of the unusual routing of the Hakluyt correspondence. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Church of England/Hakluyt correspondence archive

7 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Sir Mark Moody-Stuart

The Hakluyt matter was raised directly with the former Shell Group chairman. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Complete Shell/Hakluyt document list

7 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan to Queen Elizabeth II

The letter was sent because the Queen was Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It raised Sir Anthony Hammond’s simultaneous Church and Hakluyt connections. These were Donovan’s allegations and concerns, not findings by the Palace. (shellnews.net)

Letter to Queen Elizabeth II, 7 June 2004

8 June 2004 — Christopher James / Hakluyt response

This may be the single most important Hakluyt document.

Christopher James said it was not Hakluyt’s practice to comment on activities undertaken for clients or even whether Hakluyt had acted for a particular client. Consequently, the letter did not give Donovan the categorical denial he had requested. It should not, however, be treated as an admission of involvement. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Hakluyt response and contemporary reproduction

8 June 2004 — Alfred Donovan replies to Hakluyt

Donovan argued that Hakluyt’s reply remained ambiguous and again invited a direct denial of involvement. (shellnews.net)

Alfred Donovan reply to Hakluyt, 8 June 2004

14 June 2004 — Buckingham Palace

The Queen’s office acknowledged the letter, noted its contents and explained that the Queen would not intervene in the Church’s day-to-day administration. (shellnews.net)

Buckingham Palace letter, 14 June 2004

22 June 2004 — Lambeth Palace

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s office acknowledged the material and said its contents had been carefully noted. (shellnews.net)

Church of England letter, 22 June 2004

2007 — Shell’s own internal surveillance emails

This is arguably the strongest documentary strand because the material consists of Shell’s own internal communications, later disclosed through data-protection procedures. (johndonovan.website)

9 March 2007 — countermeasures / “round table” working group

An internal Shell email discussed a broader response to Donovan activities. The surviving archive describes this as a countermeasures structure and connects it with multiple corporate functions. (shellnews.net)

Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell — documentary compilation

11 March 2007 — internal email about Alfred and John Donovan

An internal writer referred to hopes that Alfred Donovan’s advancing age might reduce his campaigning activity but observed that John Donovan appeared equally determined. It is revealing evidence of the degree of internal attention being paid to the family. (shellnews.net)

Shell DPA documentary compilation

March 2007 — Bill O’Reilly / Fox News episode

An email from John Donovan to Fox News about Shell’s dealings involving Iran triggered internal circulation within Shell USA and Shell International. Internal personnel prepared for the possibility that Fox might contact the company. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

19 March 2007 — “sources in the USG and in London”

This is particularly significant.

A Shell internal writer stated:

“I have contacted some of my sources in the USG and in London…”

The context was an effort to obtain additional information about Alfred and John Donovan following the Fox News email. “USG” naturally reads as United States Government, but the email does not identify the individuals or agencies contacted, or establish that any government information was actually supplied. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Detailed US/Donovan security analysis and internal-email chronology

20 March 2007 — “information security tasking”

Another Shell internal email concluded that the Donovans were “of no security interest” unless Shell wished to undertake an information-security exercise to find where their well-placed Shell sources were located. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

This is an important distinction: Shell’s concern, according to its own correspondence, was not primarily a physical-security threat but information leakage.

Chapter 12: Shell corporate espionage in more recent years

21 March 2007 — global monitoring operation

Perhaps the clearest internal surveillance document.

The confidential email states that Shell had initiated an IT project:

• to monitor internal emails from Shell servers globally to Donovan; and
• to monitor web traffic to identify internal visits to the Donovan website.

The email also refers to suspicions that current and former employees were communicating with the Donovans. (shellnews.net)

Shell internal email, 21 March 2007 — “Donavan CONFIDENTIAL”

22 March 2007 — Shell USA communications posture

A Shell internal communication states that the US side should be distanced from the underlying UK dispute and provides a controlled response for use if contacted. (shellnews.net)

Shell internal email, 22 March 2007

31 August 2007 — continuing monitoring

Later internal Shell correspondence recorded continued monitoring of the Donovan website and stated that employees had been instructed not to visit it. (shellnews.net)

DPA/Shell surveillance compilation

2009–2011 — Corporate Affairs Security and Hakluyt crossover 17 June 2009 — CAS and NCFTA

Later disclosed internal correspondence referred to CAS and the National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, with “high level interest” in material being published on blogs. The identities and full purpose are obscured by redactions, so conclusions should be cautious. (shellnews.net)

Donovan v Royal Dutch Shell compilation

2010/2011 — Ian Forbes McCredie: Shell to Hakluyt

Ian Forbes McCredie, formerly Vice President of Corporate Security at Shell and an ex-intelligence officer, subsequently became associated with Hakluyt. The Donovan archive records that an email sent to his old Shell address produced a response from his Hakluyt email address. (johndonovan.website)

Chapter 5 — McCredie, Shell Corporate Security and Hakluyt background

This is strong evidence of the personnel crossover between Shell security and Hakluyt. It is not proof that McCredie or Hakluyt conducted the 1998 operation.

United States: Shell security litigation and insider material Crockett Oaks III — former FBI agent and Shell US security chief

Oaks headed Shell’s US security function. In 2017 Shell sought court intervention after alleging that he threatened to disclose confidential material concerning internal investigations. Legal reporting described his remit as including threats to Shell’s employees, property and reputation. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

That last category is particularly relevant to the wider spying issue because treating reputation as a security concern creates obvious questions about where conventional security ends and intelligence-gathering concerning critics begins.

Shell Spying in America — Oaks and other US litigation

The underlying litigation is important, but it should not be described as proving unlawful spying. What it establishes is the existence and sensitivity of Shell’s internal corporate-investigation machinery. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Michael Oliveri v Shell Oil Company

Court filings described the Security Advisor US position and Shell’s security reporting hierarchy: Crockett Oaks was identified as Regional Security Manager for the Americas, reporting upwards to James W.D. Hall at Shell’s global headquarters in The Hague. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

This is valuable because it documents a transatlantic command structure linking US security operations to central Shell management.

US security litigation master article, including Oliveri court-document links

Walied Shater litigation

Shater’s litigation exposed additional details about Shell Corporate Security, overseas assignments, repatriation, CCTV evidence, Shell’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer and its Business Integrity Department. Shater ultimately lost his Fifth Circuit appeal, which should be stated clearly. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

The case nevertheless provides independent court documentation concerning the internal structure and workings of Shell security.

Romak and Taylor v Shell — 2025 security reorganisation litigation

Michelle Romak and Kevin Taylor sued Shell USA Inc., Shell plc and Wayne Hunt over a restructuring of the corporate-security function. Those allegations remain allegations unless and until established in court. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Its relevance here is institutional rather than evidential: it provides another public court record involving the management of Shell’s US security organisation.

The confidential US insider

This should be handled particularly carefully.

My own published account records that information was supplied through ProtonMail by a person with knowledge of a severe internal falling-out among individuals associated with Shell security in the United States. Some of the supplied material included court documents, while other claims concerning identifiable individuals remain unpublished and untested. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

I would describe it in exactly those terms:

“A confidential source with apparent knowledge of Shell’s US security operation supplied Donovan with information and court material concerning internal disputes. Some of the source material could be cross-checked against public litigation; other allegations have not been published because they remain uncorroborated.”

The public litigation does not prove the confidential source’s more serious claims. But, as the existing article fairly observes, it supplies an independently verifiable institutional backdrop: Shell security personnel have indeed appeared repeatedly in litigation involving investigations, confidentiality, employment disputes and internal security management. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Why the US material makes the story more significant

The US litigation does not demonstrate a single continuous international spying conspiracy.

What it does demonstrate is that Shell operated a sophisticated international corporate-security structure extending from Houston into its global hierarchy; that former law-enforcement and intelligence personnel occupied senior security roles; that sensitive internal investigations repeatedly became the subject of litigation; and that Shell itself treated reputation as one of the interests within its security remit. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)

Put beside the British record—the Phillips admission, the Hakluyt personnel overlap, the later Shell global email monitoring and the US-government-source reference—the result is a much more substantial investigative question:

How did Shell define the boundary between legitimate corporate security and intelligence-gathering directed at critics, whistleblowers, employees and other sources of reputational risk?

I intend to include the above information in The Shell Leaks Files.

Shell Spying, Corporate Intelligence and Security: Documentary Chronology was first posted on September 14, 2026 at 11:23 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

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 14 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-057 The Sakhalin Papers XLVII: The Feeding Ground Was Losing Its Food — WGWAP’s 2019 Benthos Alarm For fifteen years, oil companies operating off north-eastern Sakhalin financed a programme that measured the tiny bottom-dwelling animals on which gray whales depended. Then something changed. Amphipod biomass in the nearshore Piltun feeding ground began falling sharply in 2013 and reached the lowest level in the entire monitoring series in 2016. That same year, the industry-sponsored benthic programme ended. Three years later, the independent Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel issued an unusually stark public warning: the whales’ traditional nearshore feeding ground might be losing the capacity to support them.

1. The problem was beneath the whales

Much of the Sakhalin controversy had been visible above or within the water column.

Platforms.

Pipelines.

Ships.

Dredging.

Seismic airguns.

Fishing nets.

But the next warning came from the seabed.

Gray whales are benthic feeders. Off Sakhalin, they descend to the seafloor and consume large quantities of small invertebrates living in or immediately above the sediment.

In the shallow nearshore feeding area around Piltun Lagoon, one of the principal prey species was the amphipod Monoporeia affinis.

Farther offshore, another amphipod, Ampelisca eschrichtii, was particularly important.

The difference would eventually matter enormously because the nearshore and offshore feeding grounds were not interchangeable for every whale.

Young calves and dependent mother-calf pairs relied especially heavily upon the shallow Piltun habitat.

2. Fifteen years of industry-financed seabed monitoring

Between 2002 and 2016, Sakhalin Energy Investment Company and Exxon Neftegas Limited jointly supported an annual benthic sampling programme.

Its purpose was straightforward but scientifically important:

to measure the distribution, composition and biomass of gray-whale prey in both the nearshore and offshore feeding areas.

The Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel later acknowledged imperfections in the programme. Sampling locations and timing varied between years.

Nevertheless, WGWAP considered the resulting 15-year dataset to possess considerable scientific value. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

That point deserves emphasis.

The evidence underlying the later warning did not originate with environmental campaigners attempting to reconstruct conditions from outside the project.

Much of it came from research financed by the oil companies themselves.

3. The decline began in 2013

The long-term dataset began showing something troubling.

According to WGWAP’s formal Open Statement of Concern dated 11 July 2019, amphipod biomass in the nearshore feeding ground began declining in 2013.

By 2016, it had reached the lowest level recorded during the entire 15-year time series.

Offshore conditions were different.

Amphipod biomass there remained high through 2016. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

The distinction between the two habitats began to offer a possible explanation for another observation.

The whales themselves appeared to be redistributing.

Increasing numbers were using the richer offshore feeding ground.

Fewer were remaining in the traditional Piltun nearshore area.

4. Then the monitoring stopped

This is the central documentary fact in the present file.

After the 2016 season, the companies discontinued the benthic monitoring programme.

WGWAP stated in July 2019 that no new data had been collected under that programme since then.

The Panel also recorded that it had repeatedly expressed disappointment over the decision because the available evidence was already showing a sharp reduction in nearshore amphipod biomass.

The timing was therefore remarkable.

A monitoring programme had produced a warning signal.

The signal was worsening.

Then the monitoring ceased.

That sequence is established.

What it does not establish is that Sakhalin Energy stopped monitoring because it wished to conceal the decline.

The documents reviewed for this instalment do not demonstrate such a motive.

The evidentially safe conclusion is narrower:

the programme ended at precisely the time when the long-term dataset was showing its most concerning nearshore result.

5. The whales appeared to be moving too

The prey decline was accompanied by changes in whale distribution.

WGWAP’s July 2019 statement recorded two developments occurring in parallel with the loss of nearshore amphipod biomass:

a continued reduction in the number of whales using the nearshore feeding area;

and a noticeable southward shift in their distribution.

The Panel said the combined pattern raised the possibility that waters immediately outside Piltun Lagoon were gradually being abandoned and could cease to function as a viable feeding ground.

That was not presented as a proven prediction.

It was a scientific warning.

And WGWAP described the matter as urgent.

6. Why mothers and calves made the warning more serious

The offshore feeding area offered abundant prey.

So why not simply allow the whales to move?

Because the observations suggested that not all animals could use the deeper offshore habitat equally.

WGWAP reported that mothers were increasingly seen offshore after weaning their calves.

But calves and yearlings had not been observed there.

That suggested that the youngest animals might not yet be capable of feeding effectively in deeper offshore waters.

The nearshore Piltun habitat was therefore not simply one feeding patch among several.

At the time of the Panel’s statement, it was the only known Sakhalin feeding area where mothers accompanied by dependent calves regularly foraged.

If that habitat became nutritionally inadequate, the biological consequences could fall disproportionately on precisely the animals most important to future population growth.

7. The 2018 numbers intensified the concern

The 20th WGWAP meeting later examined whale-distribution data from 2018.

The figures were striking.

During synchronized nearshore surveys, the average number of whales counted was only six.

The maximum was eight.

WGWAP described eight as the lowest maximum count recorded since this component of the Joint Programme began.

In comparison, a nearly simultaneous September survey estimated 124 whales offshore and only five nearshore.

But the Panel identified an important methodological complication.

The vessel used for offshore surveys in 2018 had a much higher observer platform than the vessel used previously. Observers aboard the new vessel counted substantially more whales during comparative work.

WGWAP therefore warned that raw offshore counts from 2018 should not simply be compared with earlier years without correcting for observational differences.

This is an excellent example of why the source record must be handled carefully.

There was compelling evidence of reduced nearshore use.

But not every apparent numerical increase offshore could safely be treated as a biological increase.

8. WGWAP challenged the industry programme’s reassuring conclusion

The industry-supported 2018 monitoring report concluded that the overall Sakhalin foraging group was relatively stable and generally favourable.

WGWAP did not accept that conclusion.

At its November 2019 meeting, the Panel said the available data did not support such a broad characterization.

It pointed instead to:

the severe reduction in whale abundance in the Piltun nearshore area;

the contraction of whale distribution there;

the apparent correlation with declining prey biomass;

and unresolved methodological problems in the survey data.

The Panel repeated its concern that the declining benthic biomass could eventually produce population-level consequences.

This was therefore more than an argument over presentation.

The company-supported monitoring programme and its independent scientific advisers were drawing materially different conclusions from parts of the same evidence.

9. One scientist used the word “crisis”

The November 2019 WGWAP report records an unusually forceful intervention by Panel member David Weller.

Discussing the very low use of the nearshore feeding ground and the unusually early separation of some mother-calf pairs, he described the nearshore habitat as being, in his opinion, “in a state of crisis.”

His hypothesis was that lactating females might be exhausting their nutritional reserves and moving offshore earlier in the season to find better feeding, leaving newly independent calves behind in the shallower habitat.

If correct, such a process could affect calf survival and maternal reproductive intervals.

WGWAP did not present this hypothesis as established fact.

It explicitly treated follow-up survival and reproductive monitoring as necessary.

That distinction is vital.

A serious scientific hypothesis entered the record.

It was not a proven causal finding.

10. A peer-reviewed paper pointed strongly towards natural oceanographic drivers

There was another reason not to leap from declining prey biomass to an accusation against Shell.

In February 2019, researchers published a peer-reviewed analysis in Marine Environmental Research examining prey biomass around north-eastern Sakhalin between 2001 and 2015.

The study investigated relationships between benthic prey and water depth, year, climatic indices and oceanographic processes.

Its overall conclusion was that temporal changes in prey biomass appeared to reflect climatic and oceanographic factorsdriving broader ecosystem change across the Sea of Okhotsk and Pacific Arctic region. (PubMed)

That study is significant because it provides a credible natural explanation.

Indeed, WGWAP expressly cited it when discussing possible causes of the decline.

The scientists were not approaching the question from the premise that oil and gas activity must necessarily be responsible.

11. But WGWAP would not rule industrial disturbance out

The Panel’s position was deliberately more cautious.

In its July 2019 statement, WGWAP said the cause of the amphipod decline remained undetermined.

It explicitly acknowledged that natural changes in the ecosystem might be entirely responsible.

But it added that disturbance associated with more than two decades of exploration, infrastructure development and oil and gas production in the region could not yet be excluded as having played some role.

That wording is central to this instalment.

The Panel did not find:

Shell caused the prey decline.

Nor did it find:

oil and gas activity had nothing to do with it.

Its position was:

the cause had not been determined, several hypotheses remained plausible, and the missing monitoring data made the question harder to answer.

12. The solution proposed by the scientists was more data

WGWAP called for renewed investigation.

It said the nature and causes of the amphipod decline should be examined in much greater depth.

Multiple hypotheses should be tested.

And most importantly, regular benthic sampling should restart so scientists could determine whether the decline observed through 2016 had continued.

This was not a demand for an immediate finding of corporate liability.

It was a demand for evidence.

The distinction matters.

The scientific response to uncertainty was not to invent certainty.

It was to restore the measurement programme.

13. The public warning became contemporaneous news

IUCN issued a public report on 11 July 2019, the same day as WGWAP’s Statement of Concern.

Its headline was explicit:

“IUCN scientific panel calls for investigation of decline in prey of western gray whales.”

IUCN reported that the Panel feared waters immediately outside Piltun Lagoon might be losing their ability to support recovery of the endangered whales.

It noted the steep fall in amphipod biomass, the termination of the long-term monitoring programme in 2016 and the contemporaneous shift in whale distribution away from the nearshore feeding area. (IUCN)

The warning was therefore public at the time.

It is not a concern reconstructed retrospectively from private material.

14. Shell’s own 2019 Sustainability Report

There is an important authenticated Shell record from the same year.

Royal Dutch Shell plc’s Sustainability Report 2019 described IUCN as a long-standing environmental partner and specifically referred to the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel.

Shell stated that in 2019 WGWAP had received a new three-year mandate to advise Sakhalin Energy on assessing and managing its impact on western gray whales.

The report identified Shell’s interest in Sakhalin Energy as 27.5% minus one share. (Shell)

That corporate statement confirms something important about responsibility for the advisory process.

WGWAP was not an external protest group attempting to impose itself on Shell.

It was part of an independent scientific mechanism that Sakhalin Energy had formally agreed to use.

Consequently, when WGWAP issued a public warning about the disappearing prey base, it was the company’s own independent scientific advisory structure speaking.

15. And yet benthic monitoring was still not scheduled to resume

At the November 2019 WGWAP meeting, Sakhalin Energy representatives discussed plans for 2020.

The company was seriously considering restarting annual acoustic monitoring.

But the representative confirmed that a resumption of the benthic component of the Joint Programme was not planned for 2020.

WGWAP again stressed the importance of benthic monitoring.

It was encouraged to learn that Exxon Neftegas and Gazpromneft-Sakhalin had collected environmental or benthic information independently and expressed hope that those data could extend the amphipod time series beyond the discontinued Joint Programme.

By that stage, therefore, the central problem was no longer merely that sampling had stopped.

It was that an independent scientific panel had publicly called for its resumption and regular benthic monitoring still had not been restored through the Joint Programme.

16. The High Court record remains background, not proof

As with earlier Sakhalin files, the English High Court litigation provides historical context.

In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting considered access to government environmental information relating to proposed British export-credit support for Sakhalin II.

The judgment records the scale of the project, the approximately US$650 million financing request and the environmental controversy surrounding western gray-whale habitat. (vLex)

But the limits of the judgment must remain explicit.

The High Court did not examine the 2013–2016 amphipod decline.

It did not consider the termination of the benthic programme.

It did not determine the cause of changing prey biomass.

It did not adjudicate the July 2019 WGWAP warning.

The case belongs here only because it establishes the longer history of governmental and judicial scrutiny surrounding environmental information about Sakhalin II.

Documentary Findings

The record establishes that Sakhalin Energy and Exxon Neftegas jointly supported annual benthic monitoring from 2002 through 2016 and that the resulting dataset was considered scientifically valuable by WGWAP. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

It establishes that nearshore amphipod biomass began declining in 2013 and reached its lowest recorded level in the 15-year series in 2016, while offshore amphipod biomass remained comparatively high.

It establishes that the industry-sponsored benthic programme was discontinued after 2016 and that WGWAP repeatedly objected to the loss of sampling.

It establishes that declining prey biomass coincided with reduced use and contraction of whale distribution in the Piltun nearshore feeding area. The documents describe that relationship as a correlation and concern; they do not establish a single proven causal chain.

It establishes that WGWAP regarded the loss of the nearshore habitat as especially concerning because mothers with dependent calves relied upon it and calves had not been observed feeding in the deeper offshore area.

It establishes that a 2019 peer-reviewed study found strong evidence that climatic and oceanographic processes influenced long-term prey variability. (PubMed)

And it establishes that WGWAP regarded the ultimate cause of the nearshore prey decline as unresolved: natural ecosystem processes might fully explain it, while some contribution from long-term industrial disturbance could not be excluded.

Commentary

The most striking feature of this episode is not that scientists discovered an environmental decline.

Monitoring programmes are supposed to discover changes.

The more troubling feature is what happened next.

For fifteen years, the oil companies financed the collection of evidence about what the whales were eating.

When that evidence showed the nearshore prey base falling sharply, the programme ended.

That does not prove bad faith.

There may have been contractual, scientific, regulatory, financial or programme-design reasons for ending it.

But from the perspective of environmental governance, the consequence was damaging.

The data series stopped at precisely the moment when continuity became most valuable.

Three years later, the independent scientific panel was effectively asking:

Is the decline continuing?

And because sampling had stopped, the answer was:

We do not know.

That is the larger lesson of the Sakhalin archive.

Monitoring is most useful when it produces unwelcome information.

If measurement stops when the trend becomes difficult, the entire rationale for long-term environmental monitoring is weakened.

There is also a second lesson.

This file does not establish that Shell destroyed the Piltun prey base.

The peer-reviewed evidence makes such a claim untenable.

Climate, ocean circulation and ecosystem processes offered credible explanations.

WGWAP itself acknowledged that natural change might be entirely responsible.

But precisely because multiple explanations were plausible, additional sampling was essential.

The scientific dispute was therefore not principally about whether Shell should be blamed.

It was about whether anyone was still collecting enough evidence to find out what was happening.

That question would become even sharper in 2020.

Source Record

The principal primary document is the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel Open Statement of Concern on decline of the amphipod prey base in the nearshore feeding area near Piltun Lagoon, dated 11 July 2019. It records the 2002–2016 monitoring programme, the prey decline beginning in 2013, the 2016 low point, termination of the programme and the Panel’s call for renewed sampling. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

WGWAP Open Statement of Concern — 11 July 2019

The principal contemporaneous public report is IUCN’s “Scientific panel calls for investigation of decline in prey of western gray whales,” 11 July 2019. (IUCN)

IUCN report — 11 July 2019

The principal subsequent Panel record is the Report of the 20th Meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, Moscow, 6–8 November 2019. It records the exceptionally low nearshore counts, WGWAP’s rejection of overly reassuring interpretations, concern about benthic biomass and the absence of plans to restart Joint Programme benthic work in 2020. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

WGWAP 20th Meeting Report — November 2019

The peer-reviewed scientific record is Blanchard et al., “Prey biomass dynamics in gray whale feeding areas adjacent to northeastern Sakhalin (the Sea of Okhotsk), Russia, 2001–2015,” Marine Environmental Research 145 (2019), 123–136. (PubMed)

PubMed record for Blanchard et al. 2019

The authenticated Shell corporate record is Royal Dutch Shell plc Sustainability Report 2019, which confirms the renewed WGWAP mandate and Shell’s then 27.5%-minus-one-share interest in Sakhalin Energy. (Shell)

Royal Dutch Shell plc Sustainability Report 2019

The judicial background remains Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin) and is used solely for historical context concerning transparency and proposed UK financial support for Sakhalin II. (vLex)

Archive disclaimer: The decline in nearshore amphipod biomass is documented. Its cause is not established. WGWAP explicitly acknowledged that natural ecosystem change might be entirely responsible while stating that industrial effects could not be excluded. The termination of benthic monitoring after 2016 is documented; no motive for that decision is attributed without evidence. WGWAP recommendations were independent scientific advice rather than judicial or regulatory findings.

Site-wide disclaimer applies.

Next instalment The Sakhalin Papers XLVIII: “A Philosophical Difference” — When Shell’s Scientists and Its Independent Advisers Disagreed About How Much Evidence Was Enough

By November 2020, the missing benthic data had become part of a broader dispute.

WGWAP said the disappearance of seabed monitoring was a major loss because scientists could no longer properly explain why whales were abandoning the nearshore feeding ground.

Sakhalin Energy took a different position.

The company maintained that it should not be responsible for collecting benthic information outside the area in which its operations could potentially affect the seabed.

During the meeting, Sakhalin Energy’s HSE leadership acknowledged what the minutes described as a “philosophical difference” between the objectives of conservation scientists and those of an oil company.

The next file examines that unusually candid exchange — and asks a fundamental question at the heart of independent corporate environmental oversight:

Is complying with regulatory requirements the same thing as knowing enough to protect an endangered species?(IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 14 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 14, 2026 at 10:34 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net