Shell plc

General disclaimer

Shell plc

File:Shell logo.svg
Shell Centre headquarters in London
Formerly	Forthdeal Limited (2002–2004) Royal Dutch Shell plc (2004–2022)
Company type	Public
Traded as	LSE: SHEL Euronext Amsterdam: SHELL FTSE 100 component AEX component
ISIN	GB00BP6MXD84
Industry	Energy Petroleum
Predecessors	Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (1890) The Shell Transport and Trading Company (1897)
Founded	April 1907 (1907-04) (as Royal Dutch Shell) 20 July 2005 (2005-07-20) in Shell Centre, London (current entity)
Founders	Henri Deterding Marcus Samuel Samuel Samuel
Headquarters	Shell Centre London, England, UK
Area served	Worldwide
Key people
Products	LNG Lubricants Natural gas Petrochemicals Petroleum
Brands	Jiffy Lube Pennzoil Quaker State Shell Advance Shell Broadband Shell Helix Shell Nautilus Shell Rimula Shell Rotella Shell V-Power
Revenue	US$284.3 billion (2024)
Operating income	US$34.7 billion (2024)
Net income	US$16.5 billion (2024)
Total assets	US$387.6 billion (2024)
Total equity	US$180.2 billion (2024)
Number of employees	90,000 (2025)
Divisions	Shell Chemicals Shell Gas & Power
Subsidiaries	List Shell Argentina Shell Australia Shell Canada Shell Chile Shell Hong Kong Shell India Shell Italia Shell Morocco Shell Nigeria Shell Oman Shell Pakistan Shell Philippines Shell South Africa Shell Tunisia Shell USA Shell New Zealand (now Z Energy)
Website	shell.com
Footnotes / references a formerly known as "the Royal Dutch Company for the Exploitation of Petroleum Wells in the Dutch East Indies"

Shell plc is a British multinational corporation in the oil and natural gas business, headquartered in London, England, where it masterminds its global operations of extracting, refining, and profiting from fossil fuels. Despite the modern corporate gloss, Shell is one of the old-school Big Oil giants, second only to ExxonMobil in terms of investor-owned oil and gas revenue. It is a pillar of the world’s economy, but more notably, of global carbon emissions, ranking ninth among corporate greenhouse gas contributors from 1988 to 2015. Nothing like a legacy of environmental destruction to solidify your place in history!

Formed in 1907 via a merger between the Netherlands’ Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and the UK’s "Shell" Transport and Trading Company, the firm was built to rival Standard Oil. By 1920, it had clawed its way to the top as the world's largest oil producer. It wasted no time in diversifying, dipping its corporate fingers into chemicals by 1929 and securing its seat as one of the infamous "Seven Sisters" that dominated global oil from the mid-20th century. It also proudly pioneered the commercial sea transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in 1964, ensuring that fossil fuels would stay mobile and profitable no matter the form.

Shell’s reach is staggering: over 99 countries, 3.7 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, and about 44,000 service stations worldwide. Not to mention the impressive ability to worm its way into markets through brands like Jiffy Lube, Pennzoil, and Quaker State. Its 2016 acquisition of BG Group strengthened its grip on the natural gas sector, a clear pivot to remain relevant as the world pretends to move toward cleaner energy.

Of course, Shell’s history is peppered with more than just business expansion. From its cozy dealings with the Nazi regime in the 1930s to its role in apartheid-era South Africa, this company has a stellar track record in choosing profit over ethics. And let’s not forget the Brent Spar debacle in the '90s, where Shell’s plans to dump an oil storage facility into the North Sea were thwarted by public outrage (and a particularly persistent Greenpeace campaign). Then there was the little issue of overstating oil reserves in 2004, which cost them a measly £17 million fine and the departure of their chairman.

Shell has mastered the art of greenwashing, professing commitment to "sustainability" while continuing to lobby against climate regulations and expand fossil fuel production. It was even caught red-handed adjusting its North Sea oil platforms for sea level rise due to climate change back in the 1980s—because while Shell won’t cut emissions, it sure as hell will prepare for the consequences of them.

More recently, Shell has been an enthusiastic player in the Russia–Ukraine war energy fallout. After initially buying discounted Russian crude in 2022, it faced backlash and hastily pledged to stop purchasing Russian oil and gas. A noble effort, if only it hadn’t taken a geopolitical crisis and international pressure for them to do so. Meanwhile, 2022 was a banner year, bringing Shell its highest profits in 115 years—because nothing fuels Big Oil profits quite like global instability.

Despite all the lawsuits, environmental disasters, and ethical scandals, Shell remains a financial powerhouse, sitting pretty as the largest company on the London Stock Exchange with a market capitalization of nearly $200 billion as of 2022. It even managed to win a climate case appeal in the Hague in 2024, dodging a requirement to cut emissions by 45%. Because when you have deep pockets and an army of lawyers, even the Paris Climate Accords become more of a polite suggestion than an obligation.

So, whether it’s drilling, spilling, lobbying, or litigating, Shell remains the ultimate embodiment of corporate resilience—if resilience is measured by the ability to profit off planetary destruction while dodging accountability at every turn.

History

Origins

The oil well at Pangkalan Brandan, North Sumatra, is considered to be the origin of the Royal Dutch Shell, c. 1905

Shell benzine for Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton, Antarctic Expedition 1915

Royal Dutch Petroleum dock in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), c. 1925

The Royal Dutch Shell Group was created in April 1907 through the amalgamation of two rival companies: the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Dutch: Koninklijke Nederlandse Petroleum Maatschappij) of the Netherlands and the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited of the United Kingdom. It was a move largely driven by the need to compete globally with Standard Oil—because what’s better than a monopoly? A duopoly!

The Royal Dutch Petroleum Company was a Dutch company founded in 1890 to develop an oilfield in Pangkalan Brandan, North Sumatra, and initially led by August Kessler, Hugo Loudon, and Henri Deterding. Meanwhile, the "Shell" Transport and Trading Company (yes, those quotation marks were part of the legal name, because nothing says credibility like excessive punctuation) was a British company, founded in 1897 by Marcus Samuel, 1st Viscount Bearsted, and his brother Samuel Samuel."Royal Dutch Shell: History". Archived from the original on 11 October 2008. Their father ran an antique business in Houndsditch, London,Mark Forsyth (2011). The Etymologicon: A Circular Stroll through the Hidden Connections of the English Language. Icon Books. p. 140. ISBN 978-1-84831-319-4. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2015. but soon realized that selling literal seashells was more lucrative. This quaint little enterprise somehow morphed into a globe-dominating oil empire. Who knew?

For a variety of reasons—like nationalistic pride and the fear of outright takeovers—the new firm operated as a dual-listed company, where both merging entities kept their legal existence while pretending to be one happy corporate family. The merger terms handed 60% ownership to Royal Dutch and 40% to Shell. The result? Two holding companies controlling Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij, responsible for production and refining, and Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company, which managed transport and storage.F. C. Gerretson (1953). History of the Royal Dutch. Brill Archive. p. 346. GGKEY:NNJNHTLUZKG. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2015.

The Dutch company, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij at The Hague, ran production and manufacturing, while the British arm, the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company, handled transport and storage. This arrangement allowed both parties to pretend they weren’t completely owned by foreign interests while raking in joint profits.F. C. Gerretson (1953). History of the Royal Dutch. Brill Archive. p. 346. GGKEY:NNJNHTLUZKG.

In 1912, Royal Dutch Shell expanded its empire by acquiring the Rothschilds' Russian oil assets in a stock deal. With that, the company’s production sources were split: 53% from the East Indies, 29% from the Russian Empire, and 17% from Romania.Yergin, Daniel (1991). The Prize, The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 133. ISBN 9780671799328. Because what’s an oil empire without a little geopolitical maneuvering?

20th century

Shell tank truck from 1926 based on a Ford Model TT

During the First World War, Shell made itself indispensable to the British war machine by supplying fuel to the British Expeditionary Force."The early 20th century". shell.com. Archived from the original on 31 March 2015. Retrieved 21 March 2015. It also conveniently held a monopoly on aviation fuel and supplied 80% of the British Army's TNT, ensuring that war was not only fought but also highly profitable. Ever the patriotic benefactor, Shell even offered up all of its shipping to the British Admiralty—because what’s a war without a lucrative logistics operation?

In 1916, the German invasion of Romania took out 17% of Shell’s global production, but the company rebounded in 1919 by acquiring the Mexican Eagle Petroleum Company. By 1921, it formed Shell-Mex Limited, which cheerfully marketed its products under both the "Shell" and "Eagle" brands in the UK. Meanwhile, at the Genoa Conference in 1922, Royal Dutch Shell was eyeing a monopoly on Soviet oilfields in Baku and Grosny—a scheme that collapsed after someone inconveniently leaked a draft treaty.Steiner, Zara (2005). The lights that failed : European international history, 1919–1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-151881-2. OCLC 86068902. Archived from the original on 6 October 2021. Retrieved 9 October 2021.

By the late 1920s, Shell wasn’t just big—it was the biggest, producing 11% of the world’s crude oil and controlling 10% of global tanker tonnage. Not content with simply fueling the world, Shell diversified into Shell Chemicals in 1929, setting itself up to profit from even more destructive industries.

During the Spanish Civil War, Shell backed the winning side—by selling oil to Francisco Franco’s Nationalists.Casanova, Julián (2010). The Spanish Republic and Civil War. Cambridge University Press. p. 233. Because if there’s money to be made, why pick a side based on ethics?

1932 Shell advertisement poster by the British surrealist painter Paul Nash

Shell’s global dominance extended to its London headquarters, Shell Mex House, completed in 1931 as the nerve center of its worldwide marketing efforts. The Great Depression may have been tough for most, but Shell found a way to make the best of it—by merging UK operations with BP to form Shell-Mex & BP in 1932. This cozy arrangement lasted until 1975, when the brands went their separate ways.Reference and contact details: GB 1566 SMBP Title:Shell-Mex and BP Archive Dates of Creation: 1900–1975 Held at: BP Archive GB 1566 SMBP

The 1930s weren’t all smooth sailing. Mexico’s government seized Shell’s assets, proving that not every country was willing to tolerate foreign corporate exploitation. And after the Nazi invasion of the Netherlands in 1940, the company’s Dutch headquarters relocated to Curaçao, ensuring that the war wouldn’t put too much of a dent in operations. Meanwhile, Shell’s Danish headquarters, conveniently occupied by the Gestapo, was bombed by the Royal Air Force in 1945, because sometimes karma does its job.Velschow, Klaus. "The Bombing of the Shellhus on March 21, 1945". milhist.dk. Archived from the original on 10 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2015.

In 1937, Shell-backed Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) signed an oil concession agreement with the Sultan of Muscat. By 1952, IPC even helped fund an armed force to seize an oil-rich interior region of Oman. This brilliant display of corporate-backed militarism triggered the Jebel Akhdar War, which dragged on for over five years.Peterson, J. E. (2 January 2013). Oman's Insurgencies: The Sultanate's Struggle for Supremacy. Saqi. ISBN 9780863567025. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 29 April 2018 – via Google Books.

By the 1970s, Shell had diversified further by acquiring the mining company Billiton—which it later discarded in 1994, after extracting all the value it could."Analysis: Cash bounty lures miners into risky empire-building". Reuters. 27 September 2010. Archived from the original on 19 June 2013. Retrieved 22 April 2011.

In 1989, Shell displayed remarkable foresight by raising a $3-billion natural gas platform in the North Sea by 1–2 meters to accommodate rising sea levels caused by global warming. The irony? Shell was (and still is) one of the world’s top contributors to climate change.Lieberman, Amy; Rust, Susanne (31 December 2015). "Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 21 January 2016. Retrieved 22 January 2016.

And let’s not forget the 1990s, when Shell made headlines for planning to dump the Brent Spar oil platform into the North Sea. Public backlash (and some strategic Greenpeace activism) forced a U-turn, though Shell insisted that dumping it would have been the “environmentally better” option.Brent Spar's long saga BBC News, 1998

Through wars, political manipulations, environmental disasters, and climate denial, Shell remained a resilient force of capitalism—always adapting, always profiting.

21st century

Former Shell Research and Technology Centre, Amsterdam, c. 2000

A Shell JET A refueller truck on the ramp at Vancouver International Airport, 2005

Shell kicked off the 21st century with its usual flair for strategic expansion and financial scandals. In 2002, it acquired Pennzoil-Quaker State for a modest $1.8 billion, securing its place as a successor to Standard Oil and gaining control over brands like Jiffy Lube, Rain-X, and Fix-a-Flat. Better late than never, Shell finally joined the wave of oil industry consolidations that had already seen BP scoop up Amoco and Exxon merge with Mobil."Shell Oil To Acquire Pennzoil". New York Times. 26 March 2002. Archived from the original on 7 October 2022. Retrieved 13 October 2022.

Then came 2004, when Shell decided to "redefine" its oil reserves—a creative accounting maneuver that resulted in a £17 million fine from the Financial Services Authority and the unceremonious exit of chairman Philip Watts. A $450 million payout to non-American shareholders soon followed.G. Thomas Sims (12 April 2007). "Shell Settles With Europe on Overstated Oil Reserves". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 January 2017. Retrieved 18 February 2017.Jill Treanor (31 May 2009). "Royal Dutch Shell to compensate shareholders for reserves scandal". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 2 January 2017. Retrieved 13 December 2016.

In response to the scandal, Shell reshuffled its corporate structure, issuing two classes of shares—because what better way to recover from fraud than with an extra layer of financial complexity?Kennon, Joshua (9 July 2013). "Royal Dutch Shell Class A vs Class B Shares". Archived from the original on 21 June 2020. Retrieved 19 June 2020.

Shell filling station in the UK, 2006

By 2005, Shell had reorganized itself into a single entity, Royal Dutch Shell plc, with its primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and a secondary one on Euronext Amsterdam. The company was already incorporated in 2002 as Forthdeal Limited, an uninspiringly named shelf corporation based in Bristol. The restructuring was meant to restore investor confidence, and while it didn't erase the past, it did ensure that the money kept flowing.Shell shareholders agree merger BBC News, 2005

The late 2000s saw Shell diving into Iraq’s oil wealth. During the 2009 Iraqi oil services contracts tender, a Shell-led consortium grabbed a 45% stake in the Majnoon field, one of the world's largest oil reserves. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil snagged the lead in the "West Qurna 1" field, with Shell happily pocketing a 15% share."Iraq holds oil auction, Shell wins giant field". Reuters. 11 December 2009. Archived from the original on 19 June 2013. Retrieved 22 August 2012.Pagnamenta, Robin (12 December 2009). "Shell secures vital toehold in 'the new Iraq' where oil is ready to flow". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 12 July 2012. Retrieved 22 April 2011.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)

Despite decades of environmental scandals, oil spills, and human rights controversies, Shell has remained one of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations, proving once again that when it comes to Big Oil, the only thing that truly matters is profit.

In February 2010, Shell partnered with Brazilian conglomerate Cosan to form the joint venture Raízen, a 50:50 split that conveniently allowed Shell to expand its grip on Brazil’s lucrative ethanol and energy markets. This deal bundled Cosan’s sugar, ethanol, and energy businesses with Shell’s Brazilian retail fuel and aviation distribution operations, giving the oil giant a strong foothold in the biofuels industry—one of the many greenwashing attempts it would later flaunt."Shell bets on ethanol in $21 billion deal with Brazil's Cosan". Reuters. 1 February 2010. Archived from the original on 15 October 2011. Retrieved 22 April 2011.

The following month, Shell announced it would offload “non-core” assets, including its liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) business, in an effort to fund a $28 billion capital spending spree. Translation: it needed cash to keep expanding its fossil fuel empire. The company invited buyers to submit bids by March 22, hoping to rake in $2–3 billion from the fire sale."Shell to fund capital spending by selling LPG assets". 1 March 2010. Archived from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 11 March 2010.

By June 2010, Shell was back on a shopping spree, snatching up East Resources for $4.7 billion in cash, primarily to grab its tight gas fields and further cement its presence in the US shale market."Shell Acquires East Resources' Tight Gas Fields". Infogrok.com. 31 May 2010. Archived from the original on 27 February 2012. Retrieved 17 May 2012.

Fast-forward to 2013, and suddenly, Shell was scrambling to offload its US shale gas assets, as it quietly realized that the investments weren’t as profitable as expected. At the same time, it abruptly axed a $20 billion gas project in Louisiana—a rare instance of the oil giant walking away from a massive payday. Around this time, CEO Peter Voser stepped down, and Shell appointed Ben van Beurden as his replacement in January 2014. But the bad news kept rolling in: Shell’s 2013 earnings had plummeted by 38% compared to 2012, sending its stock tumbling by 3%.

In an attempt to stop the bleeding, Shell launched a $15 billion asset sell-off campaign, unloading key assets in Australia, Brazil, and Italy throughout 2014 and 2015.James Paton (21 February 2014). "Vitol to Pay Shell A$2.9 Billion for Australian Assets". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 22 February 2014. Retrieved 24 February 2014.

By April 2015, Shell was back in full acquisition mode, announcing its £47 billion ($70 billion) takeover of BG Group—a deal that, once finalized in February 2016, propelled Shell past Chevron to become the second-largest non-state-owned oil company in the world.Tiffany Hsu (8 April 2015). "Shell-BG tie-up could challenge market leader Exxon Mobil". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 8 April 2015. Retrieved 8 April 2015.Rakteem Katakey (15 February 2016). "Shell Surpasses Chevron to Become No. 2 Oil Company: Chart". Bloomberg.com. Archived from the original on 25 November 2016. Retrieved 11 March 2017.

As part of its continued expansion, Shell announced in June 2016 that it would build an ethane cracker plant near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, conveniently glossing over the environmental cleanup required for the site before construction could begin.Shell takes final investment decision to build a new petrochemicals complex in Pennsylvania, US Archived 11 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine ‘‘Royal Dutch Shell’’ (06/07/2016)

In 2017, Shell continued selling off parts of its empire, including £2.46 billion worth of North Sea assets to Chrysaor"Shell sells North Sea assets worth £2.46bn to Chrysaor". BBC News. 31 January 2017. Archived from the original on 22 February 2017. Retrieved 10 June 2017. and its oil sands business to Canadian Natural Resources, a move that signaled its intent to fully exit the oil sands sector.Williams, Nia (24 May 2017). "Shell, ConocoPhillips oil sands share selloff risks flooding market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 7 June 2017. Retrieved 10 June 2017.

Then came the Paradise Papers leak in November 2017, revealing that Shell had offshore subsidiaries in tax havens, including ‘Shell Western Supply and Trading Limited’ and ‘Sol Antilles y Guianas Limited.’ These subsidiaries were managed by none other than Argentina’s Energy Minister, Juan José Aranguren, raising serious questions about conflicts of interest—especially considering that one of them was a major bidder for government diesel contracts."Aranguren: su paso por una offshore de Shell a la que el Estado le compró gasoil por US$ 150 M". Perfil. 7 November 2017. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 7 November 2017.

On 30 April 2020, Shell slashed its dividend for the first time since World War II, as the oil price collapse—sparked by the Russia–Saudi Arabia price war and compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic—sent shockwaves through its bottom line. Despite years of record profits, the company suddenly found itself unable to maintain payouts to investors. Shell reported a net income drop to $2.9 billion for Q1 2020, nearly half of the $5.3 billion it raked in during the same period in 2019.Raval, Anjli (30 April 2020). "Shell cuts dividend for first time since second world war". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 1 May 2020. Retrieved 30 April 2020.

By September 2020, the belt-tightening escalated to mass layoffs, with Shell announcing it would cut up to 9,000 jobs in what it euphemistically called a “broad restructuring”—a corporate way of saying that workers would bear the brunt of its financial struggles.McFarlane, Sarah (30 September 2020). "Shell to Cut Up to 9,000 Jobs". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 30 September 2020. Meanwhile, Shell prepped investors for more pain, forecasting an additional $3.5–4.5 billion in write-downs for Q4 2020—this, after already absorbing a staggering $16.8 billion impairment hit in Q2."Oil & Gas Stock Roundup: Exxon Ups Emission Goal, Shell's Q4 Update, Flurry of M&A". Yahoo Finance. 23 December 2020. Archived from the original on 2 January 2021. Retrieved 23 December 2020.

By February 2021, Shell revealed the true scale of the carnage: a $21.7 billion loss for 2020—an astonishing reversal for a company that had enjoyed years of bloated profits."Royal Dutch Shell sees huge loss as pandemic hits oil demand". BBC News. 4 February 2021. Archived from the original on 5 February 2021. Retrieved 6 February 2021. But even in crisis mode, Shell still found a way to reward investors, trimming operating costs by $4.5 billion—which, conveniently, helped it resume dividend payments.Good, Allen (8 February 2021). "Shell Increases Dividend Again With Q4 Results; Attention Turns to Upcoming Strategic Update". Morningstar.com. Archived from the original on 29 January 2021. Retrieved 12 February 2021.

Then came a major identity shift: in November 2021, Shell announced it would relocate its headquarters to London and ditch its historic “Royal Dutch” title—a move widely seen as a tax and regulatory play rather than any noble reinvention."Shell plans to move headquarters to the UK". BBC. 15 November 2021. Archived from the original on 15 November 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2021. By January 2022, “Royal Dutch Shell plc” had officially transformed into just “Shell plc”, its Dutch registration history conveniently erased.

Despite Shell’s attempt to clean up its image, it continued business as usual. In December 2021, it abruptly pulled out of the Cambo oil field project off the Shetland Islands, citing “weak economic prospects and potential delays”—a convenient excuse amid growing public and activist pressure ahead of the COP26 UN climate summit."Shell pulls out of Cambo oilfield project". The Guardian. 2 December 2021. Archived from the original on 31 January 2022. Retrieved 31 January 2022.

But then, in March 2022, Shell’s thirst for profit led it straight into a geopolitical firestorm. While much of the world rushed to cut economic ties with Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, Shell couldn’t resist scooping up a cargo of discounted Russian crude oil on 4 March 2022.Payne, Julia (4 March 2022). "Shell buys cargo of Russian crude loading mid-March from Trafigura". Reuters. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 6 March 2022. The backlash was swift, with Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, publicly condemning the deal. Shell then engaged in its signature damage control, pledging to “limit” future purchases and funnel any Russian oil profits into a fund for Ukrainian humanitarian aid.Bousso, Ron (5 March 2022). "Shell to put profits from Russian oil trade into Ukraine aid fund". Reuters. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 6 March 2022. Under mounting pressure, Shell finally announced on 8 March that it would halt Russian oil and gas purchases and close its service stations in the country."Ukraine war latest: Shell to stop buying Russian oil and gas". Financial Times. 8 March 2022. Archived from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 8 March 2022.

The financial toll? Barely a dent. 2022 turned out to be Shell’s most profitable year in its 115-year history, as soaring oil and gas prices from the Ukraine war doubled its 2021 earnings."Shell reports highest profits in 115 years". BBC News. 2 February 2023. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 2 February 2023.

And in November 2024, after years of posturing on climate commitments, Shell won its appeal against Friends of the Earth—successfully overturning a Dutch court ruling that would have forced it to cut emissions by 45%. Business as usual."Shell wins landmark climate case against green groups in Dutch appeal". BBC News. 12 November 2024. Retrieved 12 November 2024.

Corporate Affairs

Business Trends

Shell’s financial performance over recent years follows the typical Big Oil script—massive profits in boom times, swift blame-shifting in downturns, and an unwavering commitment to executive bonuses. Below is a snapshot of its financial ups and downs:

Year	Revenue (US$ bn)	Net income (US$ bn)	Employees
2017	305	12.9	86,000
2018	388	23.3	82,000
2019	344	15.8	83,000
2020	180	−21.6	87,000
2021	261	20.1	82,000
2022	381	42.3	87,000
2023	316	19.3	87,000

A standout figure here is Shell’s record-breaking $42.3 billion profit in 2022, largely thanks to the war-driven oil price surge and energy market volatility. Meanwhile, the $21.6 billion loss in 2020 led to predictable moves—dividend cuts, mass layoffs, and restructuring—all to protect shareholder interests.

---

Management

Shell’s executive board has been a revolving door of industry insiders whose main skills include keeping shareholders happy and navigating the PR nightmare that comes with being one of the world’s biggest polluters.

• Jorma Ollila (2006–2015), former Nokia CEO, was brought in as chairman to clean up after the reserves overstatement scandal, which cost Shell $450 million in settlements.

• Ben van Beurden (2014–2022) took over just in time for oil price crashes, pandemic-induced losses, and a corporate strategy that oscillated between half-hearted greenwashing and aggressive fossil fuel expansion.

• Ann Pickard, the so-called "Arctic Queen," was executive vice president for Arctic operations in 2014. Her main challenge? Convincing the world that drilling in one of the most fragile ecosystems on Earth was a good idea.

• Wael Sawan (2023–present) replaced van Beurden with a mission to balance record profits with just enough sustainability talk to keep regulators at bay.

Despite leadership shake-ups, Shell’s playbook remains unchanged: extract, profit, greenwash, repeat.

Historical Leadership

Main article: :List of chairmen of Shell

Name and Logo

The name "Shell" traces its roots back to The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company. This seemingly innocent name has origins in the 1833 import business of Marcus Samuel Sr., who sold seashells to London collectors. His son, Marcus Samuel Jr., saw a bigger opportunity—not in delicate marine curiosities but in oil profits. While collecting seashell specimens in the Caspian Sea in 1892, he noticed the potential of exporting lamp oil, promptly commissioning the world’s first oil tanker, the Murex (Latin for a type of snail shell). By 1907, the company had a fleet of tankers, ensuring oil flowed—and so did the profits. Interestingly, though Shell operated a refinery at Shell Haven on the Thames for decades, there is no evidence linking it to the company’s name.

The Shell logo is one of the most recognizable corporate symbols worldwide—an iconic "pecten" (scallop shell) that conveniently distracts from the company's less-than-environmentally-friendly business model. This logo is based on the giant scallop Pecten maximus. The color scheme—yellow and red—was likely chosen to mirror the Spanish flag, as Shell's early gas stations were built in California, a former Spanish colony.

The current logo was streamlined in 1971 by legendary industrial designer Raymond Loewy, who made it sleeker and more modern—ideal for a company that wants to look progressive while drilling deeper into the Earth.

In 2005, Shell decided to simplify its corporate branding—ditching the slash from “Royal Dutch/Shell” to just “Royal Dutch Shell.” This was part of a legal restructuring that consolidated its once-separate Dutch and British entities into a single corporate behemoth.

On 15 November 2021, Shell made another branding move, announcing plans to ditch the "Royal Dutch" part of its name entirely and relocate its headquarters to London. The decision to abandon Dutch tax residency was widely seen as an effort to escape stricter European regulations and taxes on fossil fuel profits.

Logo evolution

• 
  1900–04
• 
  1904–09
• 
  1909–30
• 
  1930–48
• 
  1948–55
• 
  1955–70
• 1971–present
  1971–present

Notes

Operations

Sales by business (2022)

Business	share
Chemicals and Products	37.9%
Service stations	31.6%
Integrated Gas	14.4%
Renewable and Energy Solutions	13.9%
Upstream	2.2%
Corporate Segment	0.0%

Business Groupings

Mars oil platform, a joint venture between Shell and BP in the Gulf of Mexico.

Shell is structured into four major business divisions:

• Upstream – Handles the lucrative job of locating and extracting crude oil and natural gas, ensuring the taps keep flowing. This division also operates the necessary midstream infrastructure to transport oil and gas to market.
• Integrated Gas and New Energies – Focuses on liquefied natural gas (LNG), gas-to-liquids conversion, and dabbling in "low-carbon" ventures (which conveniently maintain Shell's grip on the energy sector).
• Downstream – Manages refining, distribution, and marketing of oil products and chemicals. This includes running refineries, global shipping, and making sure Shell-branded stations remain a fixture across the world.
• Projects and Technology – Oversees Shell’s large-scale projects and provides technical and environmental services (the latter being a necessary PR move). This division also leads Shell’s health, safety, and procurement operations.

---

Oil and Gas Activities

Europe's largest refinery, Shell Pernis, in Rotterdam, 2019

A Shell filling station in Argos, Peloponnese. Shell operates thousands of petrol stations globally.

Shell's core business is running a vertically integrated oil empire, covering everything from exploration and extraction to refining and retail. The company built its success on economies of scale and barriers to entry, ensuring its grip on the energy sector remains unshaken. Over the years, natural gas has become one of Shell’s most profitable ventures, making up a significant chunk of its revenue.

Historically, Shell operated with a decentralized model—especially in its downstream business—allowing each country to function with a degree of independence. However, the upstream sector (oil and gas exploration and production) has always been tightly controlled from central offices, formerly in The Hague.

Shell’s downstream division, which includes its chemicals business, remains its biggest profit generator. It boasts a global network of over 40,000 petrol stations, numerous oil refineries, and an extensive supply of lubricants, industrial fuels, LPG, and bitumen. In many countries, Shell operated with "local operating companies", often run by a mix of local managers and strategically placed expatriates to ensure corporate directives were followed.

Despite some public commitments to sustainability, Shell’s core business remains fossil fuels, with its downstream empire ensuring that the world remains dependent on oil for decades to come.

Sponsorships

Valentino Rossi MotoGP 2011 Malaysia Test 1

Shell has a long and lucrative history in motorsport sponsorship, ensuring its brand remains synonymous with speed, power, and, of course, fossil fuels. The company's most notable partnerships include Scuderia Ferrari (1951–1964, 1966–1973, and 1996–present), BRM (1962–1966 and 1968–1972), Scuderia Toro Rosso (2007–2013 and 2016), McLaren (1967–1968 and 1984–1994), Team Lotus (1968–1971), and Ducati Corse (since 1999). Other long-term deals include Team Penske (2011–present), Hyundai Motorsport (since 2005), AF Corse, Risi Competizione, BMW Motorsport (2015–present, also with Pennzoil), and Dick Johnson Racing (1987–2004, 2017–present).

In 2023, Shell solidified its grip on IndyCar Series by becoming the official fuel supplier, providing E100 race fuel for all teams. Naturally, this allows the company to greenwash its image under the guise of “sustainability” while keeping its deep ties to high-performance motorsport.

Shell's partnership with Ducati has been another long-running affair, dating back to 1999. Initially backing Ducati’s Superbike World Championship efforts, Shell has since been involved in more than 150 race wins, including seven MotoGP world titles. The two companies recently extended their deal in the Netherlands in 2024, ensuring that Shell will continue to power Ducati’s racing dominance (and its own marketing machine) until at least the end of 2027.

Ultimately, Shell’s motorsport sponsorships serve a dual purpose: enhancing engine performance while polishing its public image—because nothing screams “environmentally conscious” quite like burning high-octane fuel at 200 mph.

Operations by region

Sales by region (2022)

Region	share
Asia, Oceania, Africa	33.2%
United States	22.8%
Europe	22.5%
United Kingdom	13.2%
Other Americas	8.3%

Arctic

Kulluk oil rig

The conical drilling unit Kulluk, 2013

In 2005, Shell, ever eager to expand its empire into untouched and environmentally fragile regions, purchased an offshore lease and launched its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling project. By 2006, the corporation had acquired the Kulluk oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship, ready to exploit the pristine Arctic frontier.

Delays quickly piled up, thanks to permit roadblocks, environmental lawsuits, and technical setbacks. Shell had planned to start drilling much sooner, but only managed to get started in 2012, six years after its ambitious announcement. Naturally, environmental groups like Greenpeace fiercely opposed the plans, warning that drilling in such an extreme and sensitive environment was a disaster waiting to happen.

As if on cue, problems began immediately once drilling commenced. A long list of issues included air permit violations, Coast Guard certification failures, damaged oil-spill containment equipment, and the predictable harsh Arctic weather shutting down operations. By the end of 2012, after burning through nearly US$5 billion, Shell’s Arctic dream literally ran aground.

The Kulluk Incident: On 27 December 2012, while being towed to Washington state for maintenance, the Kulluk oil rig became a floating cautionary tale. A winter storm caused the towing crews to lose control of the vessel. By 1 January 2013, it was shipwrecked off the coast of Sitkalidak Island, Alaska. A Texas A&M marine expert later warned that even a two-month delay in Arctic drilling could effectively end the entire season—a costly lesson for Shell.

Unsurprisingly, the accident threw Shell’s Arctic project into chaos. In February 2013, the corporation announced it was “pausing” its operations in Alaska for the year, with its CEO later admitting that the entire project was “under review” due to market instability and logistical failures. By January 2014, the company extended its suspension, with CEO Ben van Beurden candidly admitting that the Arctic venture was “under review”—corporate speak for “We have no idea if this will ever work.”

Despite its humiliating failures, Shell refused to give up. By June 2014, Shell executive Ann Pickard declared that the company remained committed to Arctic drilling, describing it as a “marathon” investment spanning 30 years. Her post-mortem assessment of Shell’s colossal failure? They needed to avoid “on/off switches” in project planning—meaning, next time, they’d just bulldoze ahead despite the risks.

And the risks were severe: A 2015 report from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimated that there was a 75% chance of a major oil spill in deep-sea Arctic drilling before the end of the century.

Given Shell’s track record, that was a bet worth worrying about.

Kodiak Island

In 2010, Greenpeace activists sent Shell a message—literally—by painting “No Arctic Drilling” in spilled BP oil on the side of a ship bound for Shell’s Arctic oil exploration. The protest, staged in the Gulf of Mexico, came in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, a fitting reminder of what happens when oil companies prioritize profits over environmental safety. At the event, Phil Radford of Greenpeace called on President Obama to ban all offshore oil drilling and end the use of oil in cars by 2030.

Shell, of course, ignored the warning signs and pressed ahead. On 16 March 2012, 52 Greenpeace activists from five different countries boarded the Fennica and Nordica—two icebreakers chartered to support Shell’s drilling rigs near Alaska. Around the same time, Fortune magazine interviewed Edward Itta, an Iñupiat leader and former mayor of the North Slope Borough, who voiced deep concerns about Shell’s Arctic operations. He acknowledged the economic benefits of oil production but feared a spill could permanently destroy the Inupiat’s hunting and fishing culture.

By July 2012, Shell’s Arctic ambitions were met with an even stronger backlash. Greenpeace activists shut down 53 Shell petrol stations in London and Edinburgh as part of their Save the Arctic campaign, which aims to protect the Arctic from oil drilling and industrial fishing by establishing a global sanctuary around the North Pole.

Shell’s worst-case scenario became reality in December 2012, when the Kulluk oil rig ran aground near Kodiak Island. The disaster triggered a government review into Shell’s Arctic drilling program.

1. 1. 1. Shell’s Response: Silence the Critics

Rather than admitting fault, Shell went on the offensive, filing lawsuits to block future protests. This heavy-handed approach drew criticism from Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP and Phil Radford, who accused Shell of trampling on Americans’ rights to free speech and peaceful demonstration.

Shell even took aim at Google, demanding the removal of a video from the 2013 Formula One Belgian Grand Prix. The clip featured a Greenpeace protest action, where banners reading “SaveTheArctic.org” dramatically rose during the winners' ceremony. The banners, controlled by radio antennas, revealed the Shell logo fused with an image of a polar bear’s head, making it one of the most creative acts of corporate trolling ever pulled off.

1. 1. 1. Shell’s Arctic Surrender (Sort Of)

By early 2013, Shell reluctantly announced a "pause" in its Arctic drilling project. Then, in September 2015, the corporation extended its suspension indefinitely, effectively conceding that drilling in the Arctic was a financial and public relations disaster.

Of course, Shell never officially ruled out a return to Arctic drilling. But after wasting billions, wrecking a rig, and sparking global outrage, they wisely realized that—for now—it’s cheaper to destroy the planet somewhere else.

Polar Pioneer rig

Despite its disastrous Kulluk rig grounding in 2012, Shell remained determined to risk another Arctic drilling fiasco. In a June 2014 interview, the corporation’s new executive vice president of the Arctic confirmed that Shell would continue operations in the region, because, apparently, learning from past failures is not Shell’s strong suit.

1. 1. 1. Seattle’s Resistance: The ‘Paddle in Seattle’ Protests

In May 2015, Seattle erupted in protests when it was revealed that the Port of Seattle had struck a deal with Shell, allowing the company to park its Arctic drilling rigs at Terminal 5 during the off-season. The Polar Pioneer (IMO number: 8754140), a semi-submersible offshore drilling rig, arrived to Elliott Bay, where it was greeted by a flotilla of environmental activists paddling in kayaks—a powerful visual statement against Shell’s reckless Arctic expansion.

1. 1. 1. Shell’s ‘Top-Tier’ Safety Standards Strike Again

On 6 May 2015, in what was already shaping up to be a predictably disastrous operation, the Polar Pioneer failed a U.S. Coast Guard inspection. A critical piece of anti-pollution equipment malfunctioned, leading to fines and delays—because, naturally, the company that wants to drill in the Arctic couldn’t even pass basic safety checks before leaving port.

1. 1. 1. Industry Leaders Call Out Shell’s Foolishness

Shell’s Arctic drilling obsession didn’t just alarm environmentalists—it also raised eyebrows among oil industry leaders. Executives from Total and Eni told the New York Times they were skeptical about Shell’s plans, citing economic risks and environmental hazards. Even ConocoPhillips and Equinor (formerly Statoil) had enough sense to halt their own Arctic drilling projects, after witnessing Shell’s Arctic misadventures in 2012.

Of course, Shell ignored these warnings—because, when it comes to drilling in fragile ecosystems, Shell has a long history of doubling down on bad decisions.

Australia

Main article: :Shell Australia

1. 1. 1. Prelude FLNG: A $12 Billion Floating Gas Gamble

On 20 May 2011, Shell made the final investment decision for the world’s first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility—because when it comes to pushing expensive, high-risk projects, Shell never misses a beat. This was spurred by the 2007 discovery of the remote Prelude field, off Australia’s northwestern coast, estimated to contain around 3 trillion cubic feet of gas. FLNG technology, originally developed in the mid-20th century, allows Shell to extract and process gas from fields too small or remote to exploit conventionally.

The Prelude FLNG vessel, touted as the world's longest floating structure, was designed to extract and liquefy 110,000 barrels of oil-equivalent gas per day at a site 200 km (125 miles) off Western Australia. Production was scheduled to begin in 2017, with an estimated $12+ billion price tag attached to the project.

1. 1. 1. Refinery Closures and Australian Exit Strategy

In April 2013, Shell decided to pull the plug on its Geelong Oil Refinery, resulting in yet another financial black hole for its Australian operations. By June 2013, Shell was reporting its third consecutive year of losses in the region, with a A$203 million writedown—adding to a A$638 million loss in 2012 and A$407 million in 2011, following the closure of Sydney’s Clyde Refinery.

Finally, in February 2014, Shell sold off its Australian refinery and petrol station network for US$2.6 billion (A$2.9 billion) to Swiss commodity trader Vitol, essentially waving goodbye to its once-dominant downstream business in the country.

1. 1. 1. Shell’s Last Grasp: Upstream Projects

Even after dumping its refining business, Shell still clung to its upstream projects, partnering with Chevron, Woodside Petroleum, and its massive Prelude FLNG venture. In June 2014, Shell offloaded 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum, signaling that it wanted out. However, a shareholder vote on 1 August 2014 blocked Woodside from buying back another 9.5% of shares, leaving Shell stuck with a 13.6% holding it clearly wanted to ditch. A Shell statement at the time read:

“Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited’s shareholders’ negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding.”

In other words, Shell wanted to cut and run but couldn’t find a way out—yet.

1. 1. 1. Final Takeaway: A Messy Departure

Shell’s Australian adventure has been a masterclass in corporate retreat—closing refineries, dumping assets, and making half-hearted attempts to cling to costly, high-risk projects like Prelude FLNG. While Shell loves to promote itself as a pioneer in innovation, its Australian operations tell a different story—one of strategic miscalculations, bad timing, and rushed exits.

Brunei

Main article: :Brunei Shell Petroleum

Brunei Shell Petroleum (BSP) is yet another lucrative joint venture between Shell and the autocratic government of Brunei. Shell first struck black gold in 1929, when the British Malayan Petroleum Company (BMPC), owned by Royal Dutch Shell, discovered commercial oil reserves. Since then, it has cemented its position as the largest oil and gas operator in Brunei, producing a staggering 350,000 barrels of oil and gas equivalent per day.

Oil and gas contribute a jaw-dropping 90% of Brunei’s government revenue, making the country deeply dependent on Shell’s operations.

Back in 1954, Shell’s colonial-era operations in Seria boasted 1,277 European and Asian staff, underscoring the stark divide between Western executives and local labor. While Brunei enjoys its petro-dollar wealth, concerns remain over Shell’s cozy relationship with a regime notorious for authoritarian policies and human rights abuses.

China

1. 1. 1. China: A High-Stakes Bet That Didn’t Pay Off

Shell’s relationship with China’s energy sector has been a rollercoaster of high hopes and costly miscalculations. The company entered the Chinese market hoping to strike it big in unconventional oil and gas, forming a joint venture with PetroChina at the Changbei tight gas field in Shaanxi, which has been pumping natural gas since 2008.

Shell also dove headfirst into China’s shale oil boom, investing heavily in Sichuan’s shale fields in the hope of replicating the U.S. fracking revolution. Unfortunately for Shell, China’s geology and population density proved to be formidable obstacles, and by 2014, it was already scaling back operations.

Shell also formed a joint venture to explore oil shale in Jilin with Jilin Guangzheng Mineral Development Company Limited, yet another attempt to profit from China’s vast energy resources. However, as China tightened state control over energy markets, Shell’s grand ambitions quickly fizzled out.

By May 2024, Shell had enough of the Chinese power market and announced it was pulling out to focus on more profitable ventures elsewhere.

Final Takeaway: Shell’s China gamble may have seemed like a smart move in the early 2000s, but bureaucratic red tape, complex geology, and political challenges ultimately forced it to retreat. The company is now pivoting away from its failed bets, leaving behind a legacy of high investment and low returns.

Hong Kong

Shell has been active in Hong Kong for a century, providing Retail, LPG, Commercial Fuel, Lubricants, Bitumen, Aviation, Marine, and Chemicals services. Shell also sponsored the first Hong Kong-built aircraft, Inspiration, for its around-the-world trip.

India

Shell India has inaugurated its new lubricants laboratory at its Technology Centre in Bangalore.

Indonesia

Shell started operations in Indonesia in 1928. The company launched its first gas station on 1 November 2005 in Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang. On 1 March 2006, Shell expanded into Jakarta, opening a station on Jalan S. Parman (Slipi).

As of 2022, Shell Indonesia sells:

• Shell Super
• Shell V-Power
• Shell V-Power Nitro+
• Shell V-Power Diesel
• Shell Diesel Extra

Shell has also announced plans to build a grease manufacturing plant in Indonesia, further cementing its influence in the region.

Ireland

Shell first started trading in Ireland in 1902. Shell E&P Ireland (SEPIL) (previously Enterprise Energy Ireland) is an Irish exploration and production subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell. Its headquarters are on Leeson Street, Dublin, and it was acquired in May 2002.

Shell's main project in Ireland was the Corrib gas project, a large gas field off the northwest coast. This project became highly controversial, sparking long-running protests over its onshore pipeline and licensing terms.

In 2005, Shell exited the Irish retail fuel market, selling its entire retail and commercial fuels business to Topaz Energy Group. This included depots, company-owned petrol stations, and supply agreements across Ireland.

By 2008/9, the Shell brand disappeared from Ireland as all stations were rebranded as Topaz.

The Topaz network was later acquired in 2015 by Couchetard.

By 2018, these stations underwent another rebrand to Circle K, marking the end of any Shell-branded fuel presence in Ireland.

Italy

Shell service station in San Jacopino (Florence)

Shell's activities in Italy began on 13 July 1912, with the creation of "Nafta", founded after taking advantage of the Standard Oil Trust’s breakup the previous year.

During World War I, Nafta shifted to war supply contracts with the Kingdom of Italy, expanding operations in Naples and Augusta, Sicily. After the war, it dominated the domestic fuel market alongside SIAP, the Italian branch of Esso. By 1921, under CEO Giovanni Attilio Pozzo, Nafta’s capital hit 100 million lire.

In 1922, Nafta opened its Vado Ligure plant, sparking political controversy when Prime Minister Luigi Facta sent a congratulatory telegram, drawing criticism from Socialist deputy Tonello. A Venice coastal plant was also under construction.

The founding of Agip in 1926 led to tensions, as the Ministry of the National Economy sought to limit new petrol stations unless Agip approved. This conflict was resolved in 1927, with Nafta maintaining its foothold.

In 1939, Pozzo stepped down, with Nafta holding 20% of Italy’s fuel market. However, after Italy entered WWII in 1940, Nafta was seized and placed under Agip’s control, along with American-owned firms like Esso, Vacuum, and Texaco. In 1945, after WWII, the Italian Petroli Committee restored Nafta and other foreign oil firms.

In 1949, Nafta was rebranded as Shell Italiana S.p.A., boasting a capital of over 2 billion lire. By the 1960s, Shell supplied 20% of Italy’s oil needs. It was the first company advertised on Carosello, Italy’s famous TV commercial program.

In 1959, Shell bought the Condor refinery in Rho, and in 1967, it built a large refinery in Taranto with an investment of 25 billion lire.

However, by 1974, facing economic challenges from the Yom Kippur War and Italy’s worsening business climate, Shell sold its operations to Eni, forming Italiana Petroli (IP).

Shell returned in 1980, acquiring Conoco’s Italian network. In 1987, it formed MonteShell, a joint venture with Montedison.

By July 2014, Shell exited the Italian fuel retail business, selling its 830 service stations and fuel depots to Kuwait Petroleum Italia (Q8).

However, in 2022, Shell re-entered the Italian market, signing a deal with Pad Multienergy to sell Shell products at 500+ Italian service stations. The first station opened in March 2022.

Today, Shell operates in Italy through Shell Italia S.p.A., controlled by Shell Italia Finanza S.p.A., with main offices in Sesto San Giovanni and Rome.

Malaysia

A Shell filling station in Sabah, Malaysia

Shell discovered the first oil well in Borneo in 1910, in Miri, Sarawak. Today, the oil well is a state monument known as the Grand Old Lady. In 1914, following this discovery, Shell built Borneo's first oil refinery and laid a submarine pipeline in Miri.

Nigeria

Main article: :Shell Nigeria

Shell began production in Nigeria in 1958. In Nigeria, Shell boasted to US diplomats that it had placed staff inside all key Nigerian ministries, effectively infiltrating the government.

Shell continues upstream oil extraction in the Niger Delta and has commercial operations in South Africa. In June 2013, Shell announced a strategic review of its Nigerian operations, hinting at future divestments. By August 2014, the company confirmed it was finalizing the sale of four Nigerian oil fields.

On 29 January 2021, a Dutch court ruled that Shell was responsible for multiple oil spills in Nigeria.

The Niger Delta has suffered extreme environmental devastation due to Shell's aging and corroded pipelines, which the company acknowledges need replacing but continues to use while denying responsibility for the destruction. The toxic contamination of the region’s air, land, and water has been labeled ecocide, with groups like Amnesty International and Friends of the Earth calling for Shell’s accountability.

The destruction has sparked mass protests from the Niger Delta’s inhabitants, environmental activists, and human rights groups. Calls to boycott Shell have gained momentum.

In January 2013, a Dutch court dismissed four of five allegations against Shell but held a subsidiary liable for one case of oil pollution, ordering compensation for a Nigerian farmer.

Nordic countries

On 27 August 2007, Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to rebrand 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, subject to competition law approvals in each country.

In April 2010, Shell announced it was looking for a buyer for all of its operations in Finland and was also conducting market research concerning Swedish operations.

In October 2010, Shell sold its gas stations, heavy vehicle fuel networks, and its refinery in Gothenburg, Sweden to St1, a Finnish energy company owned by Keele Oy.

North America

Main articles: :Shell USA and :Shell Canada

Shell gasoline station sign in Phoenix, Arizona

For most of its early history, Shell USA was substantially independent. Its stock was traded on the NYSE, and Shell’s global headquarters had minimal involvement in day-to-day U.S. operations.

However, in 1984, Shell bought out the 30% of Shell Oil Company it did not already own for $5.7 billion, despite opposition from minority shareholders, which resulted in a legal battle.

Philippines

Shell oil depot (Poro Point, San Fernando, La Union, Philippines)

Royal Dutch Shell operates in the Philippines through its subsidiary, Shell Pilipinas Corporation (SPC). Its headquarters is in Taguig, and it has facilities in the Pandacan oil depot and other locations.

In January 2010, the Bureau of Customs claimed that Pilipinas Shell owed 7.34 billion pesos in unpaid excise taxes for importing Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (CCG) and Light Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (LCCG), arguing that these imports should have been subject to tariffs.

In August 2016, Pilipinas Shell filed an application with the SEC to sell $629 million worth of shares as part of its initial public offering (IPO). The Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) approved the IPO on 3 November 2016, and the company was listed under the ticker SHLPH.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and global economic downturn, along with low refining margins and competition from imported fuels, Pilipinas Shell announced in August 2020 that its 110,000 bbl/d refinery in Tabangao, Batangas—which had been operational since 1962—would be permanently shut down and converted into an import terminal.

Russia

In February 2022, Shell exited all its joint ventures with Gazprom due to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In March 2022, Shell announced it would cease purchasing Russian oil and close all of its service stations in the country.

In April 2022, Shell announced it expected to incur up to $5 billion in impairment charges due to its exit from Russia.

In October 2024, Russia's General Prosecutor's Office sued Shell for over €1 billion in damages, targeting eight of its subsidiaries, claiming losses from Shell's departure.

Sri Lanka

Prior to the 1960s, Shell was one of the major multinational oil companies operating in Sri Lanka, alongside Esso and Caltex. These companies controlled petroleum imports, distribution, and retailing in the country. However, in 1962, under the leadership of Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the Sri Lankan government nationalized their assets, establishing the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC), which was given exclusive rights over the petroleum sector.

Shell re-entered Sri Lanka in 1996 by acquiring a 51% stake in the Colombo Gas Company for $37 million, forming Shell Gas Lanka Limited, which managed the importation, storage, and distribution of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

On 26 February 2025, Shell marked its return to Sri Lanka's fuel retail sector, inaugurating its first Shell-branded fuel station in over six decades at the B.S. Cooray Filling Station in Ambathale, Colombo District.

Singapore

Singapore serves as Shell's main petrochemical hub in the Asia Pacific region. The company operates a refinery on Pulau Bukom island and additional facilities on Jurong Island.

In November 2020, as part of efforts to reduce emissions, Shell announced plans to cut its oil-processing capacity in Singapore.

Nordic countries

On 27 August 2007, Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand 269 Shell service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, subject to competition law approvals.

In April 2010, Shell began seeking buyers for its operations in Finland and Sweden. By October 2010, Shell’s gas stations and refinery in Gothenburg, Sweden, were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company.

United Kingdom

In the UK sector of the North Sea, Shell employs around 4,500 staff in Scotland, along with an additional 1,000 service contractors. However, in August 2014, the company announced it was laying off 250 of them, primarily in Aberdeen.

Shell paid no UK taxes on its North Sea operations between 2018 and 2021, despite generating significant revenue from oil and gas extraction.

Alternative energy

Brunei Shell Petroleum's flagship solar plant in Panaga, 2021

In the early 2000s, Shell moved into alternative energy, creating an embryonic "Renewables" business that has invested in solar power, wind power, hydrogen, and forestry. However, the forestry business followed the fate of its nuclear, coal, metals, and electricity generation ventures and was disposed of in 2003. In 2006, Shell paid SolarWorld to take over its entire solar business, and in 2008, the company withdrew from the London Array, which, when built, was the world's largest offshore wind farm.

Shell is also involved in large-scale hydrogen projects. HydrogenForecast.com describes Shell's approach as taking "baby steps" but with an underlying message of "extreme optimism." In 2015, Shell announced plans to install hydrogen fuel pumps across Germany, aiming for 400 locations in operation by 2023.

Shell holds a 44% stake in Raízen, a joint venture with Brazilian sugarcane producer Cosan, making it the third-largest Brazil-based energy company by revenue and a major producer of ethanol. In 2015, the company partnered with Brazilian start-up Insolar to install solar panels in Rio de Janeiro to deliver electricity to the Santa Marta neighborhood.

Shell is the operator and major shareholder of the Shell Canada Quest Energy project, based within the Athabasca Oil Sands Project near Fort McMurray, Alberta. Shell holds a 60% share, with Chevron Canada Limited and Marathon Canadian Oil Sands Holding Limited each holding 20%. The project launched commercial operations in November 2015 as the world’s first commercial-scale oil sands carbon capture storage (CCS) project. It is expected to reduce CO₂ emissions in Canada by 1.08 million tonnes per year.

In December 2016, Shell won the auction for the 700 MW Borssele III & IV offshore wind farms at a price of 5.45 c/kWh, beating six other consortia. In June 2018, it was announced that Shell and its co-investor Partners Group had secured $1.5bn for the project, which also involves Eneco, Van Oord, and Mitsubishi/DGE.

Alternative energy

Brunei Shell Petroleum's flagship solar plant in Panaga, 2021

Shell Recharge rapid charger in the Cirencester Waitrose car park, 2023

In the early 2000s, Shell moved into alternative energy, creating an embryonic "Renewables" business that has invested in solar power, wind power, hydrogen, and forestry. However, the forestry business followed the fate of its nuclear, coal, metals, and electricity generation ventures and was disposed of in 2003. In 2006, Shell paid SolarWorld to take over its entire solar business, and in 2008, the company withdrew from the London Array, which, when built, was the world's largest offshore wind farm.

Shell is also involved in large-scale hydrogen projects. In 2015, Shell announced plans to install hydrogen fuel pumps across Germany, aiming for 400 locations in operation by 2023.

In October 2017, Shell acquired Europe's biggest vehicle charging network, "NewMotion". In January 2021, Shell acquired 100% of Ubitricity, the largest public charging network for electric vehicles in the United Kingdom, and in 2023 announced it would rebrand Ubitricity chargepoints under its Shell Recharge brand.

In December 2017, Shell announced plans to buy UK household energy and broadband provider First Utility. In March 2019, it was rebranded as Shell Energy, supplying electricity exclusively from renewable sources.

In February 2019, Shell acquired German solar battery company Sonnen.

On 27 February 2019, Shell acquired British VPP operator Limejump for an undisclosed amount.

On 26 January 2021, Shell acquired German Virtual Power Plant (VPP) company Next Kraftwerke.

In November 2022, Shell's subsidiary, Shell Petroleum NV, acquired the Danish renewable natural gas producer Nature Energy Biogas A/S for nearly US$2 billion.

Ownership

Ah, behold the puppet masters! Shell isn’t exactly a mom-and-pop operation—it’s primarily owned by some of the world's biggest institutional investors, because who doesn’t love profiting from a company with a rich history of environmental devastation and corporate malfeasance? Here are the top 10 shareholders of Shell plc as of early 2024:

• BlackRock Investment Management UK (4.061%) – Because nothing says "long-term sustainability" like an asset manager that funds just about every industry, including the ones killing the planet.
• Vanguard (3.710%) – Index funds just passively fueling destruction, no big deal.
• Norges Bank (3.013%) – Norway, a country that loves to parade its green energy credentials, conveniently investing in one of the world's largest polluters.
• BlackRock Fund Advisors (2.865%) – Yes, another BlackRock branch, because apparently one just wasn’t enough.
• BlackRock Advisors UK (1.352%) – And yet another. BlackRock, it seems, is very committed to Shell’s ongoing reign over fossil fuels.
• Legal & General (1.315%) – Legally investing in planet-wrecking, generally not feeling guilty about it.
• State Street Global Advisors (1.278%) – Because why let BlackRock and Vanguard have all the fun?
• Clearstream Banking S.A. (1.168%) – A banking entity making sure the cash keeps flowing while the oil keeps burning.
• Vanguard Global Advisors (0.9965%) – Ah yes, Vanguard again, showing up twice because why settle for just one cut of the pie?
• Geode Capital Management (0.7262%) – Bringing up the rear, but still making sure to get a piece of the action.

Controversies

Presentation of Shell Oil Company contribution to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation at the Foundation's Celebrating the Great Outdoors fundraising event, 2005

Ah, nothing like throwing a few charity dollars at conservation groups while simultaneously drilling the planet into oblivion. Classic Shell.

Carbon Capture Storage Beneath the Sea Bed

In 2020, Shell, Equinor, and Total announced the Northern Lights CCS project, a European Union-backed initiative (because who wouldn’t trust Shell to "fix" the problem it helped create?). The grand plan? Store liquid CO₂ beneath the seabed in Norway.

Of course, Shell loves to tout this as a climate-saving innovation while conveniently ignoring the fact that most carbon capture projects serve as a justification to keep drilling. It’s like an arsonist installing a few fire extinguishers and calling themselves a firefighter.

Processing Oil in the Amazon

Environmentalists have raised concerns—again—that Shell has been processing oil from the Amazon Basin, one of the most ecologically critical regions on the planet. In the U.S., the Martinez Refinery (CA) and Puget Sound Refinery (WA) both handle Amazonian crude. In 2015, the Martinez refinery alone processed 19,570 barrels per day from the Amazon, because what’s a little deforestation and indigenous displacement when there’s profit to be made?

Shell’s approach to the Amazon? Extract now, greenwash later.

Operating in Humpback Whale Breeding Grounds

In December 2021, Shell decided it would be a great idea to conduct seismic tests for oil exploration right in the middle of humpback whale breeding grounds off South Africa’s coast.

Despite opposition from Greenpeace Africa and marine conservationists, Shell pressed forward, firing powerful air guns underwater to map subsea geology—because why let a few whales stand in the way of corporate greed? A South African high court initially backed Shell, allowing the project to proceed, but the battle between marine life and fossil fuel profits rages on.

So, in summary: 🐋 Humpback whales? Collateral damage. 💰 Oil profits? Priceless.

Shell’s motto might as well be Drill First, Apologize Never.

Climate Change

Measured by both its own emissions and the emissions of all the fossil fuels it sells, Shell was the ninth-largest corporate producer of greenhouse gas emissions from 1988 to 2015.

If you’re keeping score at home, that means that 1.67% of all industrial greenhouse gas emissions from 1988 to 2015 were courtesy of Shell. That’s quite the legacy—if the goal was to speed-run planetary destruction.

Of course, it’s not just the emissions—Shell has also been an enthusiastic member of lobbying groups that aggressively oppose climate policies and promote climate skepticism. Because why take responsibility when you can just muddy the waters and pretend the problem doesn’t exist?

Back in 1991, Shell even made a documentary called Climate of Concern, which explicitly warned about the dangers of global warming. And then… did absolutely nothing about it. The film resurfaced in 2017, to the amusement (or horror) of critics who noted that despite knowing the risks for decades, Shell had continued business as usual.

As for actual investments in renewable energy? Shell has been dragging its feet. Between 2010 and 2018, a measly 1% of its long-term investments were allocated to low-carbon energy such as wind and solar. From 2015 to 2017, an embarrassing 0.4% of its revenue went towards low-carbon tech.

It gets better—Shell set a target to spend $6 billion on renewables by 2020. Spoiler alert: they failed. Even their 2025 targets are looking unrealistic, unless, of course, they suddenly decide to invest over half of their capital expenditures—around $10 billion per year—into clean energy. But let’s be honest, that’s about as likely as an oil executive trading in their yacht for a bicycle.

In April 2020, Shell tried to save face by announcing its net zero greenhouse gas emissions goal for 2050. Naturally, this came with all the fine print you’d expect: vague promises, undefined reductions, and some good old-fashioned corporate doublespeak.

By 2024, Shell had already started backpedaling. CEO Wael Sawan casually announced that the company was reducing its near-term carbon emission reduction targets. The original goal was a 45% reduction by 2035—now? Forget it. They also quietly lowered their 2030 target from 20% to 15%, because apparently even minimal progress was too much of a stretch.

To sum up: 🌍 Big talk, tiny action. 💸 Minimal investment in renewables. 📉 Lowering climate targets rather than meeting them.

Shell: Masters of Greenwashing, Champions of Corporate Hypocrisy.

Litigation

Main article: :Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell

On 5 April 2019, Milieudefensie (Dutch for "environmental defense")—alongside six NGOs and more than 17,000 fed-up citizens—decided they had had enough of Shell’s climate destruction and took the company to court. The accusation? Harming the climate while being fully aware of global warming since at least 1986. Who could have guessed?

In May 2021, the district court of The Hague delivered a shocker: Shell was legally ordered to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 (compared to 2019 levels).

Naturally, Shell wasn’t about to let something as trivial as a legally binding court ruling get in the way of profits. The company appealed, arguing that the court had overstepped its authority and that enforcing actual emissions cuts might have *gasp* economic consequences. The case was expected to set a precedent for how European energy giants handle their climate responsibilities (read: how much longer they can keep dodging them).

And then, the moment Shell had been waiting for: On 12 November 2024, The Hague’s appeals court overturned the 2021 ruling. This meant Shell was no longer legally required to slash its emissions by 45% by 2030—including the emissions from all the oil and gas it sells. A big win for Shell, a catastrophic loss for the climate.

Oil Spills

Ah, yes—oil spills, the inevitable byproduct of Shell’s relentless pursuit of profit. Here’s a highlight reel of some of their greatest hits:

• May 2016: A mere 21,000 gallons of oil spilled near Tracy, California due to a cracked pipeline. Whoops!

• May 2016 (again): Not content with just one spill, Shell upped the ante with an 88,200-gallon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Because if you’re going to ruin an ecosystem, might as well do it properly.

• September 2015 & May 2016: Two ruptures in a Shell pipeline in Altamont, California raised serious questions about whether the Office of the State Fire Marshal was actually doing its job overseeing pipeline safety. (Spoiler: probably not.)

• January 2021: A Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell plc's Nigerian unit to finally pay up for oil spills that devastated two villages 13 years ago. Shell’s response? Blame sabotage, because taking responsibility just isn’t their style.

One would think that after this long list of disasters, Shell might reconsider its approach. But let’s be real—spilling oil, dodging responsibility, and crying about regulations is just another day at the office for them.

Accusations of Greenwashing

Shell's former world headquarters in Haagse Hout, The Hague—where they mastered the art of greenwashing.

Shell has long been at the forefront of pretending to care about the environment while doing the exact opposite. Their dedication to deception is so impressive that they’ve racked up quite the collection of greenwashing scandals.

On 2 September 2002, Shell chairman Philip Watts had the distinct honor of accepting the "Greenwash Lifetime Achievement Award" from the Greenwash Academy’s Oscar Green—yes, an *actual* award for corporate deception—near the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Truly a career highlight.

In 2007, the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled against a Shell ad that showed chimneys spewing flowers instead of, you know, pollution. The ad attempted to portray Shell’s waste management policies as environmentally friendly, but the ASA wasn’t buying it and called the whole thing misleading.

In 2008, Shell continued its misleading PR campaign, this time declaring that its $10 billion oil sands project in Alberta, Canada, was a "sustainable energy source." The ASA stepped in again, ruling that this claim was, in fact, complete nonsense.

By 2021, Shell was back at it, this time running a campaign claiming customers could magically turn their fuel purchases "carbon neutral" by buying offsets. Dutch authorities took one look at this and shut it down, ruling that Shell’s claims were utterly baseless.

Then came 2022, when the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform took a long, hard look at Shell and other fossil fuel giants and concluded that they had been engaged in a full-scale disinformation campaign to obscure the role of fossil fuels in global warming. The committee reviewed internal documents and accused Shell—along with BP, Chevron Corporation, and ExxonMobil—of:

• Greenwashing their Paris Agreement carbon neutrality pledges, while actually increasing fossil fuel production.
• Running a campaign to promote natural gas as a "clean" energy source (which is about as accurate as calling coal "renewable").
• Intimidating journalists reporting on their climate deception.
• Obstructing the committee’s investigation.

Naturally, Shell, ExxonMobil, and the American Petroleum Institute all denied everything, because that’s just how the game is played.

So there you have it—Shell: masters of deception, pioneers of greenwashing, and forever dedicated to making the world believe they’re saving the planet while actively destroying it.

Health and Safety

Shell’s commitment to health and safety has been, let’s just say, questionable at best. Over the years, a number of incidents have highlighted just how "seriously" the company takes workplace safety—so seriously that the UK Health and Safety Executive repeatedly issued warnings about the dire state of Shell’s North Sea platforms. Turns out, even when you're drilling in one of the most dangerous environments on the planet, maintenance is still optional if you’re Shell.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Shell has had a bad safety record—from explosions to oil spills to equipment failures, the company has made a habit of cutting corners. But hey, profits first, worker safety... somewhere much further down the list.

Reaction to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Shell is no stranger to strategically exiting markets when sanctions or geopolitical tensions threaten their bottom line. Back in 2011, Shell pulled out of Syria when EU sanctions made it too inconvenient to keep doing business with the Assad regime.

Fast forward to March 2022, and history repeated itself. Shell announced its intention to gradually phase out all Russian hydrocarbon production and acquisitions, including crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas, and liquefied natural gas (LNG). However, "gradually" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. While other companies swiftly cut ties, Shell took its sweet time, leading to public outrage. Even the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine called them out, asking, "Doesn't Russian oil smell like the blood of Ukrainians?" Brutal, but fair.

By April 2023, despite all the grandstanding about "phasing out" Russian involvement, Shell still had significant financial stakes in Russia—including a 27.5% share in Sakhalin Energy Investment Company (SEIC), a joint venture with Gazprom (50%), Mitsui (12.5%), and Mitsubishi (10%). Because when billions are at stake, "pulling out" is apparently a very slow and selective process.

So, while Shell tried to maintain a "we’re totally against this war" public image, the reality was much more complex: Profitability over principles, as usual.

royaldutchshellplc.com

In what can only be described as an absolute PR nightmare for Shell, the domain royaldutchshellplc.com has been a persistent thorn in the company's side. First registered in the name of Alfred Donovan by his son John Donovan, their delightful little gripe site has been calling out Shell’s misdeeds for decades, much to the company's dismay.

When Alfred passed away, his death was mentioned in an article by veteran journalist Ed Vulliamy published by The Observer newspaper and on the Guardian website in August 2013.

Despite Shell’s legal efforts to shut it down, the site has managed to remain online, largely because it technically isn’t cybersquatting—as long as it stays non-commercial, active, and isn’t put up for sale (according to a ruling by WIPO). Sorry, Shell!

In 2005, Donovan even went as far as to say he’d be willing to give up the domain—but only if Shell fired all the executives he deemed responsible for the company’s many scandals. Unsurprisingly, Shell did not take him up on this generous offer.

The site has been a go-to source for leaked Shell documents and insider scoops, making it a nightmare for Shell’s PR team. In 2008, Financial Times used information from the site to publish an article about Shell’s pension scheme troubles. Shortly after, Reuters and The Times also ran similar stories based on the leaks.

One of the biggest bombshells came on 18 October 2006, when the site revealed that Shell had been cozying up to the Russian government by handing over sensitive information about the Sakhalin II project. Not long after, Russian energy giant Gazprom managed to snatch a 50% stake in the project. Just a coincidence? Probably not.

Other leaks published on the site include:

• A 2007 IT outsourcing plan that led to thousands of job losses.
• A 2008 internal memo where then-CEO Jeroen van der Veer whined about Shell’s underwhelming stock performance.

The site's impact has been so significant that even major publications have acknowledged it as a serious source of information. In 2006, the Fortune Global 500 rankings listed royaldutchshellplc.com right alongside Shell’s *actual* corporate site. Awkward.

By 2009, the Santa Barbara News-Press called it "the world’s most effective adversarial website."

Or, as one journalist put it: *"An open wound for Shell."*

See also

• Bataafse Petroleum Maatschappij
• Chaco War
• Fossil fuels lobby
• Lensbury
• List of companies based in London
• Shell Guides, a series of guidebooks
• Shell V-Power
• Shell Service Station (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)
• St1

Bibliography

Commissioned works

(In chronological order)

• Smith, P. G. A. (2015) [Originally published in London: Shell Marketing Co., 1919]. The Shell That Hit Germany Hardest. London: Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781332281633. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Shell ... Soldier and Civilian. New York: Shell Union Oil Corporation. 1945. OCLC 1979498. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Canada Oil. A Century of Progress. Montréal: Shell Oil Company of Canada. 1951. OCLC 150432098. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• The Technical Man in Oil Production. Los Angeles: Shell Oil Company. 1954. OCLC 5731010. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Beaton, Kendall (1957). Enterprise in Oil, a History of Shell in the United States. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. OCLC 236680. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Dotreville, P.V.B.A. (1958). Belgian Shell Company, 1908–1958. Brussels: Shell Oil Company. OCLC 66950829. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Renseignements généraux sur la Shell Oil Company of Canada, Limited, 50e anniversaire, 1911–1961 (in français). Toronto: Shell Oil Company of Canada. 1961. OCLC 503096409. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Forbes, R. J. (1965). A Chronology of Oil: With Special Reference to the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies (2nd, rev. ed.). Den Haag: Bataafse Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij (Royal Dutch/Shell Group). OCLC 65917520. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Wells, Barbara (1979). Shell at Deer Park: The Story of the First Fifty Years. Houston: Shell Oil Company. OCLC 991773301. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Shell Oil Company: A Story of Achievement. Houston: Shell Oil Company. 1984. OCLC 20438979. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
• Shell: 75 Years Serving America. Houston: Shell Oil Company. 1987.
• Schroeder, John G. (1993). Shell at Wood River: 75 Years of Progress. Wood River. IL, USA: Shell Oil Company. OCLC 30772350. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Montgomery, Bob (2002). Down Many a Road: The Story of Shell in Ireland 1902–2002. Tankardstown: Dreoilín Publications. ISBN 190277311X. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Hutchins, H. R. (Holly) (2004). Shell Deer Park: Celebrating 75 Years: People Making a Difference. Deer Park, TX: Shell Deer Park Refining Limited Partnership and Shell Deer Park Chemical Plant. OCLC 780701509. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Jonker, Joost; van Zanden, Jan Luiten (2007). From Challenger to Joint Industry Leader, 1890–1939: A History of Royal Dutch Shell, volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199298785. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Howarth, Stephen; Jonker, Joost (2007). Powering the Hydrocarbon Revolution, 1939–1973: A History of Royal Dutch Shell, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199298792. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Sluyterman, Keetie E. (2007). Keeping Competitive in Turbulent Markets, 1973–2007: A History of Royal Dutch Shell, volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199298808. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• van Zanden, Jan Luiten (2007). A History of Royal Dutch Shell. Appendices. Figures and explanations, collective bibliography and index. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199234400. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Manvelov, N. V. (2017). 125 Years of Shell in Russia: 1892–2017. Moscow: Factotums. ISBN 9785990887848. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.

Other works

• African National Congress (1980). Fuelling Apartheid. New York: United Nations Centre Against Apartheid, Department of Political and Security Council Affairs. OCLC 77008976. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• A Criminal Enterprise?: Shell's Involvement in Human Rights Violations in Nigeria in the 1990s. London: Amnesty International. 2017. OCLC 1022200039. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Negligence in the Niger Delta: Decoding Shell and Eni's Poor Record on Oil Spills. London: Amnesty International. 2018. OCLC 1051890064. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Bailey, Martin (1978). Shell and BP in South Africa (2nd ed.). Birmingham: Haslemere Group/Anti-Apartheid. ISBN 0905094026. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Brakel, Aat (1985). People and Organizations Interacting. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0471904767. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Bridges, Harry (1972). The Americanization of Shell: The Beginnings and Early Years of Shell Oil Company in The United States. Newcomen address, 1971. New York: Newcomen Society in North America. OCLC 489377. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Carroll, Phil (1999). Rebounding, Rebuilding, Renewing at Shell Oil: A Former CEO Reflects on Large-scale Change. Innovations in management series. Waltham, MA, USA: Pegasus Communications. ISBN 1883823358. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Cummins, Ian; Beasant, John (2005). Shell Shock: The Secrets and Spin of an Oil Giant. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing. ISBN 184018941X. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Doran, Peter B. (2016). Breaking Rockefeller: The Incredible Story of the Ambitious Rivals Who Toppled an Oil Empire. New York: Penguin Publishing Group. ISBN 9780143130000. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Frynas, Jedrzej George (1998). Is Political Instability Harmful to Business?: The Case of Shell in Nigeria. University of Leipzig papers on Africa, Politics and economics series, no. 14. Leipzig: Institut für Afrikanistik, Leipzig University. ISBN 393263215X. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Fuchs, Tina; Glas, Miroslav (2006). Problem ravnanja vodstva podjetij: primer Shell: diplomsko delo [The Problem of Business Management Behavior: the Shell case] (diploma thesis) (in slovenščina). Ljubljana: Independently published. OCLC 441619660. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Glässer, Wiebke (2019). Marktmacht und Politik: das internationale Kartell der Ölgesellschaften 1960–1975 [Market Power and Politics: The International Oil Company Cartel 1960–1975] (in Deutsch). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. ISBN 9783110633221. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Goedman, Jan (1978). Naar een maatschappelijke planologie en planning: perspectieven voor een ruimtelijke theorie en politiek van de arbeid [Towards a Societal Planning and Planning: Perspectives for a Spatial Theory and Politics of Work] (in Nederlands). Amsterdam: Ekologische Uitgeverij. ISBN 9062240119. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Hall, John; (with Vaughn, Patrica) (1994). Riding the Winds of Change: The Chronicles of Jack Hall. Chula Vista, CA, USA: ICAN Press. ISBN 1881116514. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Hendriks, Frank (1987). Shell: produktie, verwerking en verkoop: energie, metalen, bosbouw en zaaizaad: casestudies Curaçao, Zuid Afrika, Nigeria [Shell: Production, Processing and Sales: Energy, Metals, Forestry and Seeds: case studies Curaçao, South Africa, Nigeria] (in Nederlands). Utrecht: Van Arkel. ISBN 9062241514. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Hewitt, John (1998). The Shell Poster Book. London: Profile Books. ISBN 1861970617. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Howarth, Stephen (1992). Sea Shell: The Story of Shell's British Tanker Fleets 1892–1992. London: Thomas Reed. ISBN 094763732X. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Howarth, Stephen (1997). A Century in Oil: The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company, 1897–1997. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0297822470. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Ibeanu, Okechukwu; Luckham, Robin (2006). Niger-Delta: Political Violence, Governance and Corporate Responsibility in a Petro-state. Abuja: Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD). ISBN 1902296303. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Jordan, A. G. (2001). Shell, Greenpeace, and the Brent Spar. Basingstoke, Hants, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0333745469. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• McCaughan, Michael (2008). The Price of Our Souls: Gas, Shell and Ireland. Dublin: AFRI. OCLC 822888257. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Merrillees, Scott (2015). Jakarta: Portraits of a Capital 1950–1980. Jakarta: Equinox Publishing. ISBN 9786028397308. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Nieuwenhuis, Frans (1995). Monseigneurs en managers: de Kerk van Rome en de Shell vergeleken [Monseigneurs and Managers: the Church of Rome and the Shell compared] (in Nederlands). Rotterdam: Ad. Donker. ISBN 9061004039. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• O'Donnell, Francis (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility and Shell in Ireland: A Thin Veneer. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1443832212. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Ogoni Study Group (Port Harcourt, Nigeria) (1995). Crisis in Ogoniland: The True Story. Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria: Ogoni Study Group. OCLC 47997162. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Okonta, Ike; Douglas, Oronto (2003). Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights, and Oil in the Niger Delta (New ed.). London; New York: Verso. ISBN 1859844731. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Omoweh, Daniel A. (2005). Shell Petroleum Development Company, the state and underdevelopment of Nigeria's Niger Delta: a study in environmental degradation. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. ISBN 0865439842. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Osakwe, Jimor (2002). Justice and the Niger Delta Crises: Historical Analysis in Political and Socio-economic Philosophy. Benin City, Nigeria: Independently published. OCLC 58833598. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Priest, Tyler (2007). The Offshore Imperative: Shell Oil's Search for Petroleum in Postwar America. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 9781585445684. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Reiss, Bob (2012). The Eskimo and The Oil Man: The Battle at the Top of the World for America's Future. New York: Business Plus. ISBN 9781455525249. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Rowell, Andrew; Goodall, Andrea (1994). Shell-Shocked: The Environmental and Social Costs of Living with Shell in Nigeria. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International. ISBN 1871532809. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Sampson, Anthony (1975). The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies And The World They Shaped. New York: Viking Press. ISBN 067063591X. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022. (Also 4th, revised, edition (1991). The Seven Sisters: The 100-year battle for the world's oil supply. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0553242377.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link))
• Saro-Wiwa, Ken (1992). Genocide in Nigeria: The Ogoni Tragedy. London: Saros International Publishers. ISBN 1870716221. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Schubert, Bianca (2000). Shell in der Krise: zum Verhältnis von Journalismus und PR in Deutschland [Shell in Crisis: On the Relationship between Journalism and PR in Germany] (in Deutsch). Münster: LIT Verlag. ISBN 3825851877. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Séguin Dulude, Louise; Desranleau, Claude; Fortier, Yves (1991). La R-D Du Groupe Royal Dutch/Shell Et Shell Canada Limitee: Des Priorites Globales Et Des Initiatives Locales / Royal Dutch/Shell Group and Shell Canada Limited R & D. Special Paper Series, Volume 91, Issue 1 (in English and français). Montréal: École des hautes études commerciales, Centre d'études en administration internationale. ISBN 2920296132. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Veron, J. Michael (2007). Shell Game: One Family's Long Battle Against Big Oil. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press. ISBN 978-1599210339. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 9 January 2022.
• Verweij, Myrthe; Plantenga, Bart (2003). Leaking Pipelines: Shell in South Africa (in English and Nederlands). Amsterdam: Milieu defensie. OCLC 870109711. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Vorfelder, Jochen (1995). Brent Spar oder die Zukunft der Meere : Ein Greenpeace-Report [Brent Spar or the Future of the Seas: A Greenpeace Report] (in Deutsch). München: C.H. Beck. ISBN 3406392423. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Wesseling, Louis (2000). Fuelling the War: Revealing an Oil Company's Role in Vietnam. London; New York: I. B. Tauris. ISBN 9781860644573. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Wilcox, Fred A. (2019). Shamrocks and Oil Slicks: A People's Uprising Against Shell Oil in County Mayo, Ireland. New York: NYU Press. ISBN 9781583678466. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Williams, Dick (1999). Tankermen: A Seafarer's Recollections of a Life Afloat with "Shell". Bramber, West Sussex, UK: Bernard Durnford Publishing. ISBN 095356701X. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Fuelling Apartheid: Shell and the Military. Geneva: Programme to Combat Racism, World Council of Churches; London: Christian concern for Southern Africa; Utrecht: Werkgroep Kairos. 1984. OCLC 494638741. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
• Yergin, Daniel (1991). The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671502484.
• ——————— (2011). The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 9781594202834.
• Yeo, Ai Hoon (1988). Enterprise in Oil: The History of Shell in Singapore, 1890-1960 (BA (Hons) thesis). National University of Singapore. OCLC 982168866. Archived from the original on 17 March 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2022.

External links

• Business data for Royal Dutch Shell plc:
  • SEC filings
• Shell plc companies grouped at OpenCorporates
• Works by Shell Union Oil Corporation at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Shell plc at the Internet Archive
• Works by Shell plc at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• Documents and clippings about Shell plc in the 20th Century Press Archives of the ZBW