Shell lawsuit: Institutional investors back legal challenge over climate risk

Debbie: They really are useless little or no customer service. If you do get to talk to someone they haven't got a clue how to solve things. Never been happy since first signing. I never thought I would admit this but they make TalkTalk seem good. I am now fighting against the cost of 39 po7nd because I haven't returned it. Once again they are lying saying they sent out a self addressed envelope for the return of the modem. Must have got lost in the post.Also my contract ended 8th January it is now 24th and they only just let know. As a company they are devious untrustworthy and morally corrupt. They DO NOT deserve even 1 customer

Tailspin: 29th July 2020 Tailwind Energy Investments Ltd (Co. Reg. No.12776446) was incorporated with one ordinary share of £1 issued to Tailwind Energy Holdings LLP (Co. Reg. No. OC430905) for a consideration of £1 23rd December 2020 Tailwind Energy Investments Ltd issued 290 shares of £1 each to Tailwind Energy Holdings LLP in return for 290 shares of NSV Energy Ltd (Co. Reg. No. 06220464) representing a 100% interest in that entity. Following the transaction, Tailwind Energy Holdings LLP became the parent company of Tailwind Energy Investments Ltd. On the date of issue, the shares of NSV Energy Ltd were valued at $479.9 million resulting in the recognition of an investment of $479.9 million. On 1st November 2021, Tailwind Energy Investments Ltd declared a dividend of $36.4 million. Tailwind Energy Investments Ltd entered into an agreement with its now subsidiary NSV Energy Ltd to pay the dividends directly to its parent's ultimate shareholders. For the period ended 31st December 2021 Tailwind Energy Investments Ltd recorded a profit of $36.4 million arising from a dividend declared by its subsidiary in November 2021. Dividends of $36.4 million ($125,245.7 per share) were declared by Tailwind Energy Investments Ltd for the period ended 31st December 2021. Companies House records show for Tailwind Energy Holdings LLP under 'People' the following: Cavendish Energy Holdings Ltd (Co. Reg No.12154073) Mecuria Asset Holdings (Hong-Kong) Ltd A Private Ltd Company Mercuria Holdings (UK) Ltd (Co. Reg. No. 123718128) Companies House Records show that Tailwind Energy Holdings LLP is the 'Designated Member' and only 'Designated Member' for each of the above three companies. There is a 'circularity' here that does not seem correct. Where did the dividend go? Tailwind Investments Ltd Annual Report and Financial Statements period ended 31st December 2021 indicates Page 16 7. Tailwind Energy Investments Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tailwind Energy Holdings LLP itself a 51% subsidiary of Cavendish Energy Holdings Ltd (Co. Reg. No. 12154073) . Cavendish Energy Holdings Ltd is also the ultimate parent company and ultimate controlling party which prepares consolidated financial statements. Companies House Records show under 'Appointments' for Cavendish Energy Holdings Ltd that Tailwind Energy Holdings LLP is the 'Active LLP Designated Member'. Where did the $36.4 million dividend go?

Bogus Group: Thanks to Wrath for the clarification. I recall a lot of competent and committed people at BG Group, I also recall a toxic culture among those aspiring to climb the leadership “greasy pole” at all costs. If Mr Gould’s disparaging comments were not aimed at the latter group, it’s no surprise the meeting ended on a low note. These are the people that set targets, but if they can’t perceive how to deliver, someone (not them) has to be held to account. Seems like the pressure was being felt regarding Queensland Curtis LNG and the toxic ‘blame culture’ was in full-swing. I understood the cost overrun on this project was in the region of £3.3bn, which is surprising as their General Counsel at the time had written the highly regarded book ‘Project Finance’. It must have been left behind in TVP in preference for “back-end loading”.

Wrath: In response to Bogus Group's enquiry. The reference to Contractors being given 'equal' status to Employees refers to a speech given by Andrew Gould, then Executive Chairman of BG Group, at a Townhall meeting in the BG cafeteria in the Hutton Building, Thames Valley Business Park, in Q4 2014. At that Townhall meeting Mr Gould, during his speech to the assembled staff, made many references to 'you' (meaning BG Group Staff) failing to meet targets. (A Freudian slip, perhaps, given his ambition for a knighthood?). Eventually, a senior staff member in the audience corrected Mr Gould and said that he (the senior staff member) would feel happier if Mr Gould used the pronoun 'we' instead of 'you', at which point Mr Gould accepted the criticism and corrected himself. During that speech, Mr Gould also said that it was vital that BG Group meet their targets, especially first export of QC LNG coalbed methane to LNG, by year end. In order to achieve this he said that BG Group Contractors would have 'equal' status to BG Group Employees i.e. 'all hands to the pumps'. That meeting was recorded. Shell makes $70bn BG offer (oedigital.com) It was at the end of that meeting, that Sami Iskander, then Chief Operating Officer, stood up and to whoever would listen as they 'fled' the cafeteria with their ears burning made the statement that BG Group, the previous year (?) had spent £200MM assuring work which later cost the company £2Bn because it was wrong.

Bogus Group: Would like to hear more on the thread of these interesting comments. Contractors were not always on ‘equal status’, particularly when it came to safety. In the BG Group 2010 annual report, Chapman’s statement that contractor safety would be a particular focus in 2011, seemed to infer that contractor performance was the issue, however, BG Group were ultimately responsible for those at the worksites, including contractors. In 2012, his “deep regret” of the unacceptable safety performance deterioration in 2011, would appear to indicate the “particular focus” was misconceived.

Wrath: Andrew Gould, former Executive Chairman of the failed BG Group, whose motives were questionable, would be well reminded that putting contractors on equal status as company employees in order to meet 'stretch' targets is in direct conflict with the 'Constitutions' of the various 'Bodies Corporate', despite alignment through 'bridging' documents.

in response to Wrath...: Technical safety across the board has suffered a similar mindset... "as long as it doesn't blow-up on my watch, it's <>." the new SEAM organization has made it abundantly clear, that safety has to be in "balance with business drivers of production and affordability." When it eventually goes boom, it will be blamed on TSE not the folks who are sweeping the concerns under the rug. the new emperors have no clothes!

Wrath: Subsurface Technical Staff at Shell who previously worked for BG Group would be well advised to remember that reserves should not be booked on subjective technical workflows and furthermore that both the technical workflows used in calculating reserves and their results should be reproducible by the Auditors. The BG philosophy of 'it's alright as long as the oil and/or gas is flowing out of the ground and we don't know where it is coming from' is irresponsible, short sighted and to the detriment of Shell's shareholders. This attitude should be dropped pronto!

Astudley: Internet down 3 times for a day at a time. Reported it never had any contact back or reason given. Useless company out at end of contract.

H2 down the tubes..: https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/exclusive-shell-has-quietly-closed-down-all-its-hydrogen-filling-stations-in-the-uk/2-1-1335049

ANON: RE: Nigerian oil export terminal had theft line into sea for 9 years Sometimes I think I have seen it all and then this comes along Nigeria is simply doomed with all the corruption. Take it from me, this is a major operation to fix. So the top brass must have been involved. Half or more of the population is scratching a living in miserable circumstances, there is no more rule of law and these gangsters lay a pipeline from a terminal and steal oil. Simply beyond what I can imagine.

TERRIBLE: They cut off my 87 year old moms phone. This isn't just a phone for people of that age its and essential lifeline. After spending an hour on hold I eventually got through to the customer service department. They said a bill hadn't been sent because of billing issues. That's why it wasn't paid. So, I settled the bill over the phone. The following day the service was resumed and a demand for the money paid over the phone was sent to her house. How incompetent are these people. I spent another hour on hold. No reply to the call at all this time. No response to my emailed complaint. Obviously I now have to find another provider. But a lot of stress for my mother. DO NOT DEAL WITH THESE PEOPLE. They are the worst of the worst. Date of experience: 10 September 2022