Russia

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 14 OCTOBER 2026

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 14 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-087

The Sakhalin Papers LXXVII: Poland Strikes Back — Shell, Gazprom and the PLN 29 Billion Nord Stream 2 Penalty That Collapsed in Court

On 7 October 2020, Poland’s competition authority announced an extraordinary decision against Gazprom and five Western European energy companies, including Royal Dutch Shell. Gazprom was fined more than 29 billion Polish zlotys, while Shell received a separate penalty exceeding PLN 30 million. The regulator also ordered the companies to terminate their agreements financing Nord Stream 2. Poland argued that the companies had effectively recreated a prohibited joint venture through lending arrangements. The companies disagreed and appealed. In November 2022, a Polish court overturned the decision. In October 2023, an appellate court upheld its annulment. The documentary record reveals a remarkable confrontation between European energy strategy, competition law and corporate finance — and demonstrates why regulatory allegations must never be confused with final judicial findings. read more

^*This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment, the Shell DPA Files, "Shell and the Spies", the Shell Leaks files, as well as books written and published by John Donovan - Kindle eBooks. Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud. Toxic History of Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record — 550+ Articles, 110 Books, 40 Years. ^*All created and supported by internet wizz, Nick Gill.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 13 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 13th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 13 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-086

The Sakhalin Papers LXXVI: Poland’s Red Light — How Shell’s Nord Stream 2 Shareholding Became a €950 Million Financing Commitment

In September 2015, Royal Dutch Shell signed an agreement intended to give it a 10 per cent shareholding in Nord Stream 2, the controversial pipeline designed to transport Russian natural gas directly to Germany. Eleven months later, Poland’s competition authority effectively derailed the proposed ownership arrangement. Shell and its partners withdrew their application. But the project survived. On 24 April 2017, Shell signed a different agreement, committing financing and guarantees worth up to €950 million while Gazprom retained sole ownership of the pipeline company. The authenticated corporate announcements, Polish regulatory records, contemporaneous Reuters reporting and subsequent court proceedings reveal how an apparent regulatory defeat became a fundamentally different commercial arrangement. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 12 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 12th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 12 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-085

The Sakhalin Papers LXXV: From Sakhalin to the Baltic — Shell Joins Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2 Project as Europe Divides

On 4 September 2015, Royal Dutch Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden joined Gazprom chairman Alexey Miller and four other European energy companies in signing an agreement to develop Nord Stream 2. The proposed pipelines would double the capacity of the existing Baltic Sea route for Russian gas exports to Germany. Shell described the project as necessary for Europe’s future energy needs. Six days later, the Slovak prime minister publicly condemned the agreement as a betrayal of Ukraine and Slovakia. Within weeks, the European Parliament was raising concerns about energy dependence, security and the political consequences of bypassing established transit countries. The authenticated corporate announcements, contemporary journalism, parliamentary records and subsequent court proceedings reveal how a project promoted as commercial infrastructure became a major geopolitical controversy.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-085
Publication date: 12 October 2026
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers — Shell, Gazprom and Russia
Principal authenticated records: Gazprom and OMV joint corporate announcement, 4 September 2015; European Parliament briefing, 1 October 2015; US Treasury sanctions announcement, 12 September 2014; EU regulatory and judicial records.

Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, 18 June and 4 September 2015; Associated Press, 10 September 2015; Euractiv, 10 September 2015; Agence Europe, June and October 2015. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 11 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 11th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 11 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-084

The Sakhalin Papers LXXIV: The Field Washington Targeted — Shell, Gazprom and the Sanctions That Threatened Their LNG Expansion

On 18 June 2015, Ben van Beurden and Alexey Miller signed agreements intended to transform Shell’s relationship with Gazprom into a much broader strategic partnership. Central to their ambitions was a third LNG production train at Sakhalin II, supplied with additional gas from the Russian-controlled Sakhalin III project. Seven weeks later, on 7 August, the United States imposed export restrictions specifically targeting the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye field — one of the most important potential sources of that additional gas. The timing exposed an extraordinary contradiction: while Shell and Gazprom were seeking to deepen their commercial relationship, Washington was restricting access to the technology needed to develop resources central to their expansion plans.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-084

Collection: The Sakhalin Papers

Principal authenticated records: Gazprom corporate announcements of 18 June 2015 concerning strategic cooperation, Sakhalin II expansion and European gas transmission infrastructure; US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, final rule published 7 August 2015, Federal Register document 2015-19274, 80 FR 47402; Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2014, filed with the SEC on 12 March 2015.

Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, 18–19 June and 7–10 August 2015; Bloomberg, 7 August 2015; New Europe, 7 August 2015; contemporaneous reports preserved in the Donovan Shell archive. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 10 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 10th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 10 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-083

The Sakhalin Papers LXXIII: The Sanctions Paradox — Shell and Gazprom Plan More LNG While Shell Suspends Russian Shale Exploration

On 30 September 2014, just eighteen days after Washington introduced expanded restrictions on Russian energy technology, Ben van Beurden met Gazprom chairman Alexey Miller at Gazprom’s headquarters. The Russian company’s official announcement welcomed the prospect of increasing LNG production at Sakhalin II. But Shell’s subsequent filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission reveals a crucial distinction: during the same year, Western sanctions had already caused Shell to suspend separate Russian shale-exploration activities. The documentary record exposes how Shell attempted to preserve one major Russian investment while restrictions were bringing other parts of its Russian portfolio to a halt.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-083

Collection: The Sakhalin Papers

Principal authenticated records: Gazprom corporate announcement of 30 September 2014; Gazprom–Shell memorandum-roadmap of 23 February 2014; Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2014, filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on 12 March 2015; Gazprom corporate records concerning Sakhalin III.

Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, 30 September 2013; Argus Media, 1 October 2014; LNG Industry, 1 October 2014; Reuters and Interfax reporting on Shell’s Russian operations during September 2014. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 9 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 9th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 9 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-082

The Sakhalin Papers LXXII: The Partnership Survives — Shell Returns to Gazprom as Sanctions Tighten

On 23 May 2014, five weeks after Ben van Beurden met Vladimir Putin outside Moscow, Shell’s chief executive met Gazprom chairman Alexey Miller again — this time at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. Russia’s annexation of Crimea had already triggered Western sanctions. Yet the two companies were discussing further cooperation, including expansion of Sakhalin II. Within weeks, the United States and European Union would impose much more consequential restrictions on Russian finance and energy technology. Shell’s response was revealing: it would comply with applicable sanctions, but it was not abandoning its Russian business. The surviving corporate records, contemporary reporting and government documents show how the Gazprom partnership continued through the gathering political crisis.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-082

Collection: The Sakhalin Papers

Principal authenticated records: Gazprom corporate announcements of 23 February, 23 May and 30 September 2014; Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2014; US Treasury sanctions announcements of 16 July and 12 September 2014; EU Council Regulation 833/2014.

Contemporaneous reporting: Associated Press, 30 April 2014; Reuters and RIA Novosti, July–September 2014; Interfax, 19 September 2014; UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, published 1 June 2014. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 8 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 8th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 8 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-081

The Sakhalin Papers LXXI: Good Friday with Putin — Shell Seeks Kremlin Support as Crimea Sanctions Begin

On 18 April 2014, barely a month after Russia annexed Crimea, Royal Dutch Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden travelled to Vladimir Putin’s residence outside Moscow. Western governments had begun imposing sanctions. Diplomatic relations were deteriorating. Yet Shell’s new chief executive was seeking something very different from confrontation: Kremlin support for expanding Sakhalin II and strengthening Shell’s long-term position in Russia. The meeting was recorded in an official Russian presidential transcript, reported by Reuters and Dutch broadcasters, and subsequently explained by van Beurden himself. What makes the episode especially revealing is what happened shortly afterwards. On the same afternoon, Putin authorised the first shipment of Arctic oil from Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya platform — the installation at the centre of the Arctic 30 controversy examined earlier in this series.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-081
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: Russian Presidential Executive Office transcript, 18 April 2014; Gazprom corporate records, 23 February, 18 April and 23 May 2014; Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2014; US Treasury sanctions announcements, March and April 2014; United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262.
Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, 18 April 2014; NOS, 18 April 2014; Bloomberg, 18 April 2014; AFP, 18–19 April 2014; Washington Post interview with Ben van Beurden, 10 September 2014.
Judicial context: European Court of Human Rights, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), Grand Chamber judgment of 25 June 2024.
Evidence standard: The meeting, public statements, sanctions chronology and project-development discussions are supported by official records and contemporary reporting. Commentary concerning Shell’s political judgment is distinguished from established fact. No finding is made that Shell breached sanctions or participated in Russia’s actions against Ukraine. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 7 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 7th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 7 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-080

The Sakhalin Papers LXX: The Third Train — Shell Pushes to Expand the Project It No Longer Controlled

Seven years after Shell surrendered control of Sakhalin II to Gazprom, it was pressing its new majority partner to make the project larger. In September 2013 Shell warned that delay could squander favourable Asian LNG prices. The difficulty was not the existing plant: Sakhalin II was already producing above its original design capacity. The problem was finding enough additional gas. Shell pointed toward Gazprom’s neighbouring Sakhalin III resources. In December, Peter Voser and incoming chief executive Ben van Beurden agreed with Gazprom to advance engineering work. On 23 February 2014, van Beurden and Alexey Miller signed the roadmap in Sochi. Shell no longer controlled Sakhalin II. But it plainly still regarded the project as something worth expanding.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-080; Collection: The Sakhalin Papers; Principal authenticated records: Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2014; Gazprom corporate records dated 23 October and 23 December 2013 and 23 February 2014; Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, 30 September 2013; Later corroborating record: Gazprom’s subsequent account of the proposed third train and its intended Sakhalin III feed gas; Evidence standard: preparation of FEED documentation is distinguished throughout from a final investment decision or authorisation to construct the third train. No court or arbitral ruling identified for this instalment adjudicated the commercial merits of the expansion proposal. read more

SHELL LEAKS FILES: 6 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 6th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

SHELL LEAKS FILES: 6 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-079

The Sakhalin Papers LXIX: “A Good and Reliable Partner” — The Arctic 30 Put Shell’s Gazprom Alliance to the Test

On 18 September 2013 Greenpeace activists attempted to scale Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya platform in the Pechora Sea. The following day Russian authorities boarded the Dutch-flagged Arctic Sunrise in Russia’s exclusive economic zone. Twenty-eight Greenpeace activists and two freelance journalists were eventually detained and prosecuted. Within weeks Greenpeace was demanding that Shell sever its Arctic cooperation with Gazprom. Shell refused to disown its Russian partner. A spokesman called Gazprom a “good and reliable partner” — while simultaneously stressing that Shell had no involvement in Prirazlomnaya and no joint Arctic operation with Gazprom then under way. The distinction was legally important. Reputationally, it was much harder to maintain.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-079
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: Royal Dutch Shell plc SEC filings concerning Sakhalin II and Shell’s 2013 Annual Report and Form 20-F; Gazprom corporate records concerning Russian Arctic cooperation and Prirazlomnoye
Contemporaneous reporting: ANP, NOS, The Washington Post, contemporary reporting preserved in the Donovan archive
Judicial and arbitral record: The Arctic Sunrise Case, ITLOS Case No. 22; Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia); later Bryan and Others v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights
Evidence standard: Shell’s commercial relationship with Gazprom, the Greenpeace protest, Russian boarding and detention of the Arctic Sunrise, international proceedings and the start of Prirazlomnoye production are treated according to corporate, governmental and judicial records. Greenpeace accusations against Shell are attributed to Greenpeace. Nothing identified here establishes that Shell ordered, requested or participated in the Russian security operation or prosecution. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 4 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 4th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 4 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-077

The Sakhalin Papers LXVII: From Protocol Toward a Joint Venture — Shell and Gazprom Neft Plan Expansion Across Western Siberia and Beyond

Seven months after Shell and Gazprom signed their “Protocol on Strategic Global Cooperation”, Shell chief executive Peter Voser and Gazprom Neft chief Alexander Dyukov signed basic terms for something more concrete: a possible new joint venture covering Western Siberia, other Russian regions and even “third countries”. The distinction matters. No new venture was actually created by the June 2011 document. Shell and Gazprom Neft agreed to study one. By September Alexey Miller and Voser were still discussing how it might be established. But the direction was unmistakable. Four years after Shell lost control of Sakhalin II, the company was attempting to turn its relationship with Gazprom into a platform for expansion far beyond Sakhalin.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-077
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2011; US Securities and Exchange Commission filing record; Gazprom corporate records concerning the 2010 Strategic Global Cooperation Protocol and the June 2011 Gazprom Neft–Shell agreement
Contemporaneous reporting: Gazprom Neft press-service material; Dow Jones; Russian business press; contemporaneous Donovan archive
Judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: The June 2011 agreement is described according to what it actually did: it established basic terms for examining the creation of a joint venture. It is not represented as proof that the contemplated venture had already been incorporated or that every proposed project proceeded. Corporate statements about technology, international assets and future cooperation are attributed to the companies making them. Commentary concerning strategic motives is identified as commentary. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 2 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 2nd, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 2 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-075

The Sakhalin Papers LXV: The “New Heartland” — Why Shell Deepened Its Gazprom Partnership After Losing Control

In December 2006 Shell agreed to surrender control of Sakhalin II. By April 2007 Gazprom owned 50 per cent plus one share. Yet within two years Shell was not retreating from Russia. It was signing twenty-year gas agreements with Gazprom, discussing Sakhalin III, exploring Yamal LNG opportunities and establishing a working group to pursue additional Sakhalin resources. Shell’s 2009 Annual Report went further still: Russia had become a new corporate “heartland.” The documents establish the expansion of the relationship. They do not contain a single internal memorandum explaining why Shell chose that course. But Shell’s public statements, Gazprom’s records and the commercial structure make the strategic calculation unusually visible.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-075
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2009; Shell SEC filings; Gazprom corporate releases of 8 April and 18 September 2009
Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, Bloomberg, Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal, UPI, AFP and The Times
Judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: The agreements, meetings, ownership interests and Shell’s description of Russia as a new “heartland” are treated as established documentary facts. Contemporary descriptions of Shell having been forced or pressured to surrender control remain attributed to journalists and other observers. No public court judgment identified here determined that Gazprom’s acquisition resulted from an unlawful bargain. Explanations of Shell’s strategic motives are commentary unless explicitly attributed to Shell. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 1 OCTOBER 2026

Oct 1st, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 1 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-074

The Sakhalin Papers LXIV: The Kremlin’s LNG Prize — Russia’s First LNG Plant Opens After Shell Loses Control

Two years after Gazprom took control of Sakhalin II, President Dmitry Medvedev inaugurated Russia’s first liquefied natural gas plant. Shell was no longer the controlling shareholder, but it had not disappeared: it retained 27.5 per cent, remained a technical participant and would soon be buying Sakhalin LNG under long-term arrangements. On 29 March 2009 the first Russian LNG cargo left for Japan. Shell’s own annual report later called Russia a new “heartland.” The project had survived cost escalation, environmental controversy, litigation, political pressure and a forced change in ownership. The strategic prize was finally producing — under Russian control.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-074
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated record: Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2009
Contemporaneous corporate record: Sakhalin Energy statement, 18 February 2009
Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, Financial Times, Oil & Gas Journal, Offshore, New Europe
Judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: Production, ownership, capacity and Shell accounting statements are treated as established where recorded in Shell or Sakhalin Energy documents. Contemporary descriptions of the 2006–07 ownership change as coercive or politically driven remain attributed assessments rather than judicial findings. The plant’s successful commissioning is not treated as proof that earlier environmental concerns were unfounded or that every environmental obligation had been satisfied. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026

Sep 30th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026

SLF-2007-073

The Sakhalin Papers LXIII: The Reserves Ledger — Did Shell Really Lose 1.06 Billion Barrels?

In March 2008, the consequences of Shell’s surrender of control at Sakhalin II surfaced in the language oil companies understand best: proved reserves. Contemporary reports said roughly 1.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent were disappearing from Shell’s books. Shell’s own annual report contained two striking figures — 658 million boe and 402 million boe — which, when added together, appeared to support that conclusion. But they did not describe the same thing. One figure represented minority interests disappearing from a consolidated subsidiary; the other represented reserves being transferred into the equity-accounted investment column. Shell’s actual reduction in proved reserves attributable to its shareholders from the Sakhalin transaction was approximately 402 million boe. The distinction is accounting — but it is not merely cosmetic.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-073
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2006; Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2007
Contemporaneous reporting: Financial Times; JP Morgan/Hemscott; The Observer; Bloomberg; Thomson Financial/AFX; Energy Intelligence
Judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: Shell’s reserve figures and accounting classifications are treated as corporate facts. Contemporary descriptions of a 1.1-billion-barrel “loss” are attributed to the analysts and journalists who used them. No accounting reclassification is treated as a physical disappearance of hydrocarbons. The distinction between reserves surrendered economically and reserves merely moved between reporting categories is maintained throughout. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 29 SEPTEMBER 2026

Sep 29th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 29 SEPTEMBER 2026

SLF-2007-072

The Sakhalin Papers LXII: The Fine Print — $4.1 Billion, a $19.4 Billion Budget and the “Economic Balance” Agreements

The Kremlin agreement of December 2006 determined who would control Sakhalin II. The transaction completed on 18 April 2007 determined what that change meant in money, accounting and project economics. Shell received approximately $4.1 billion, surrendered half its interest, stopped consolidating Sakhalin Energy as a subsidiary and accepted Gazprom as majority shareholder. On the same day, Russia approved the revised Environmental Action Plan, the project’s amended development budget was approved, and Shell later disclosed that additional agreements had been signed with the Russian Government “addressing the economic balance of the project.” Those facts are documented. The surviving public record is much less explicit about what those additional agreements contained.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-072
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: Royal Dutch Shell plc Form 20-F for 2007; Shell SEC-filed 2007 interim financial statements; Shell announcement of 18 April 2007
Government/project record: approval of the amended Sakhalin II development budget and revised Environmental Action Plan
Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters; Oil & Gas Journal; contemporary project and financial reporting
Later judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: transaction figures and accounting treatment are treated as established corporate facts. Statements concerning Russian motives or coercion remain attributed assessments. The phrase “economic balance of the project” is Shell’s own description; no interpretation of undisclosed agreement terms is presented as fact. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 28 SEPTEMBER 2026

Sep 28th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 28 SEPTEMBER 2026

SLF-2007-071

The Sakhalin Papers LXI: The Kremlin Deal — $7.45 Billion and the Day Shell Agreed to Give Up Control

On 21 December 2006, after months of environmental enforcement, permit uncertainty, cost disputes and negotiations with Gazprom, Shell and its Japanese partners signed a protocol inside the Kremlin. Gazprom would pay $7.45 billion for 50 per cent plus one share of Sakhalin Energy. Shell’s 55 per cent interest would be halved. President Vladimir Putin described Gazprom’s entry as a corporate decision and, at the same meeting, said the project’s fundamental problems could be considered resolved. The timing generated immediate allegations that regulatory pressure had been used as commercial leverage. Shell did not adopt that interpretation. Nor did any court identified in this archive adjudicate such a bargain. What the documents do establish is unusually stark: the ownership dispute, the project-budget dispute and the environmental crisis converged on the same day.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-071
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated record: Royal Dutch Shell plc Form 6-K filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, December 2006; Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2007
Corporate environmental record: Shell Sustainability Report 2006
Government and institutional record: contemporaneous Kremlin statements; later House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report
Contemporaneous reporting: The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Oil & Gas Journal
Later judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Additional contemporary record: Shell’s January 2007 response to the Donovan account, subsequently preserved by Legal 500
Evidence standard: transaction terms are treated as corporate facts; Russian environmental allegations as allegations; descriptions of administrative pressure are attributed to journalists or Parliamentary findings; the coincidence of regulatory and commercial events is not treated as proof of a secret quid pro quo. read more

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 27 SEPTEMBER 2026

Sep 27th, 2026

by John Donovan.

Comments are off for this post

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 27 SEPTEMBER 2026

SLF-2007-070

The Sakhalin Papers LX: The Permit War — When Shell’s Internal Emails Reached Russia’s Environmental Watchdog

In September 2006, Russia moved against the environmental approval underpinning Sakhalin II Phase 2. Shell-led Sakhalin Energy said the approval had survived a Russian court challenge only weeks earlier and denied there were lawful grounds for revocation. Then another evidential strand entered the dispute. Internal Shell emails from 2002 — expressing concern about seismic faults, well design and a project being “schedule driven” — were supplied by John Donovan to Russian environmental official Oleg Mitvol. Contemporary Interfax and Argus reporting independently recorded that Mitvol received the material and sought answers from Sakhalin Energy. The emails did not prove environmental catastrophe, nor has any court identified here adjudicated their technical implications. But they became part of the regulatory confrontation at precisely the moment Shell was fighting to retain control of its largest Russian investment.

Archive reference: SLF-2007-070
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal corporate records: Shell/Sakhalin Energy statements; Shell internal Bouman–Van Spronsen emails; Royal Dutch Shell SEC filing of 21 December 2006
Regulatory record: Russian Ministry of Natural Resources/Rosprirodnadzor statements as reported contemporaneously
Contemporaneous reporting: Reuters, Interfax, Oil & Gas Journal, The Guardian, Dow Jones/MarketWatch and Argus
Archive correspondence: John Donovan communications with Oleg Mitvol, August–November 2006
Later judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: Russian allegations, Sakhalin Energy responses, internal technical concerns, Donovan commentary and journalistic interpretation are kept separate. The transmission of the Shell emails to Rosprirodnadzor is documented; it is not inferred that those emails caused the Russian regulatory campaign or the subsequent transfer of control to Gazprom. read more

30 November 2023: Posted by John Donovan

The content below is sourced from current verifiable customer reviews of Shell Energy published on Trustpilot.
Extremely slow broadband for 10 months, not fixed. I have had slow broadband well below the guaranteed speed for 10 months and Shell Energy have not been able to fix it. They have tried sending about 4 or 5 engineers but have not fixed the problem. Gurps, who I have been dealing with most recently, has been friendly and polite, alth… Read more

Extremely Slow Shell Broadband

Russia

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 14 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-087

The Sakhalin Papers LXXVII: Poland Strikes Back — Shell, Gazprom and the PLN 29 Billion Nord Stream 2 Penalty That Collapsed in Court

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 13 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-086

The Sakhalin Papers LXXVI: Poland’s Red Light — How Shell’s Nord Stream 2 Shareholding Became a €950 Million Financing Commitment

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 12 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-085

The Sakhalin Papers LXXV: From Sakhalin to the Baltic — Shell Joins Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2 Project as Europe Divides

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 11 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-084

The Sakhalin Papers LXXIV: The Field Washington Targeted — Shell, Gazprom and the Sanctions That Threatened Their LNG Expansion

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 10 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-083

The Sakhalin Papers LXXIII: The Sanctions Paradox — Shell and Gazprom Plan More LNG While Shell Suspends Russian Shale Exploration

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 9 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-082

The Sakhalin Papers LXXII: The Partnership Survives — Shell Returns to Gazprom as Sanctions Tighten

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 8 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-081

The Sakhalin Papers LXXI: Good Friday with Putin — Shell Seeks Kremlin Support as Crimea Sanctions Begin

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 7 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-080

The Sakhalin Papers LXX: The Third Train — Shell Pushes to Expand the Project It No Longer Controlled

SHELL LEAKS FILES: 6 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-079

The Sakhalin Papers LXIX: “A Good and Reliable Partner” — The Arctic 30 Put Shell’s Gazprom Alliance to the Test

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 4 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-077

The Sakhalin Papers LXVII: From Protocol Toward a Joint Venture — Shell and Gazprom Neft Plan Expansion Across Western Siberia and Beyond

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 2 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-075

The Sakhalin Papers LXV: The “New Heartland” — Why Shell Deepened Its Gazprom Partnership After Losing Control

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 1 OCTOBER 2026

SLF-2007-074

The Sakhalin Papers LXIV: The Kremlin’s LNG Prize — Russia’s First LNG Plant Opens After Shell Loses Control

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026

SLF-2007-073

The Sakhalin Papers LXIII: The Reserves Ledger — Did Shell Really Lose 1.06 Billion Barrels?

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 29 SEPTEMBER 2026

SLF-2007-072

The Sakhalin Papers LXII: The Fine Print — $4.1 Billion, a $19.4 Billion Budget and the “Economic Balance” Agreements

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 28 SEPTEMBER 2026

SLF-2007-071

The Sakhalin Papers LXI: The Kremlin Deal — $7.45 Billion and the Day Shell Agreed to Give Up Control

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 27 SEPTEMBER 2026

SLF-2007-070

The Sakhalin Papers LX: The Permit War — When Shell’s Internal Emails Reached Russia’s Environmental Watchdog

Sir Henri Deterding, resurrected!

JOE LYCETT DISCUSSES SHELL WITH JOHN DONOVAN

Meta

John Donovan’s ebooks

JOHN DONOVAN TV DOCUMENTARY INTERVIEW

SHELL EXECUTIVES AT THE CENTER OF A SCHEME TO STEAL $1.3 BILLION FROM NIGERIA’S PEOPLE

SHELL ADMITS DEALING WITH NIGERIAN MONEY LAUNDERER – BBC NEWS

SHELL, ENI AND NIGERIAN OFFICIALS IN OPL 245 CORRUPTION SCANDAL

INVESTIGATION OF OPL 245 NIGERIAN OIL CORRUPTION SCANDAL

DUTCH EARTHQUAKES CAUSED BY SHELL/EXXON

SHELL KILLS FOR OIL IN NIGERIA

SHELL LIED ABOUT CLEANING UP OIL IN NIGER DELTA

SHELL SPIES INFILTRATED NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT

LEGO DROPS SHELL OVER GREENPEACE OIL SPILL VIDEO

SHELL ARCTIC DRILLING ACCIDENTS

SHELL KNEW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE DECADES AGO

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL FOUNDER SIR HENRI DETERDING, NAZI FINANCIER

JOHN DONOVAN PROMOTIONAL GAMES FOR SHELL AND OTHER CLIENTS

Archives

SHELL OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT OF THIS WEBSITE

Critic’s corner

The worst ever

30 November 2023: Posted by John Donovan

The content below is sourced from current verifiable customer reviews of Shell Energy published on Trustpilot.

The worst ever

OVER 500 EXTERNAL PUBLICATIONS CITING OUR SHELL WEBSITES

DISCLAIMER

Categories

SHELL PROPPED UP APARTHEID

Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Cookies Policy