Shell-BP Megamerger: When Greed Meets Greenwash in a Match Made in Hydrocarbon Hell

When Shell CEO Wael Sawan responded to speculation about a mega-merger with BP, he said the bar for acquisitions was “very high.” Clearly, it’s not nearly as high as Shell’s tolerance for greenhouse gas emissions, human rights controversies, or sheer corporate arrogance.

Now, as rumours swirl about Shell swallowing up its once-proud British cousin, BP, we are once again reminded that in Big Oil, consolidation is just a polite word for “expanding your emissions footprint while doubling your marketing budget.”

This wouldn’t just be a merger. It would be the ExxonMobil of Europe — a Frankenstein of fossil capital, one part greenwashing, two parts tax-optimised global plundering. The result? A behemoth belching 5.4 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, with refining capacity that leaves only Exxon ahead — and that’s not a leaderboard worth climbing.

When Shell Loves BP (But Not the Climate)

Let’s be brutally honest: the potential Shell-BP merger isn’t about strategic synergy. It’s about securing future profits before the house (planet) burns down completely. The math? Well, Goldman Sachs estimates BP’s future profits aren’t even enough to cover its cost of capital — but with enough synergies (aka layoffs and asset stripping), Shell might squeeze out a paltry 6%–8% return. That’s assuming everything goes perfectly — which, in oil industry terms, means only moderate ecological catastrophe and a handful of lawsuits.

Shell, of course, already knows the synergy drill. When it bought BG Group in 2016, it promised $2.5 billion in savings and magically “found” $4.5 billion — mostly by axing staff and scaling back renewable talk faster than you can say “climate crisis.”

But even with that rosy outlook, Sawan isn’t rushing. Why? Because share buybacks are easier than actually doing anything innovative. Shell is currently forking out $3.5 billion a quarter to buy back its own shares, juicing the numbers while keeping investors like BlackRock and Vanguard deliriously happy with their quarterly cash transfusions — morality be damned.

A Toxic Legacy, Reunited at Last

Let’s not forget, Shell and BP go way back — and not in a good way. Both were founding clients of Hakluyt, the shady private intelligence firm built by former MI6 operatives to help oil majors spy on environmental activists, whistleblowers, and journalists who dared to ask uncomfortable questions. If ever a merger promised to turbocharge that dark tradition, it’s this one.

And the apartheid ties? Yes, both BP and Shell played their part in propping up the apartheid regime in South Africa, supplying fuel and quietly cashing in while most of the world imposed sanctions. These are not companies with a track record of ethical introspection.

Now, decades later, we’re meant to believe they’ve reformed? Shell can’t even handle a power failure at its floating gas bomb Prelude without leaving workers stranded. And BP? Still staggering from a revolving door of strategic faceplants and financial flops.

The Investor Circus

Meanwhile, institutional investors — the arsonists in Armani suits — keep cheerleading from the sidelines. BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street… all of them up to their necks in Shell and BP stock, funding the destruction while slapping “sustainable” stickers on index funds and hoping no one notices the stench.

They’re not just shareholders. They’re enablers.

When Pollution is a Growth Strategy

If the merger ever happens, it won’t be because it’s good for the planet, or even good for workers. It’ll be because it’s good for the balance sheet of a company that’s made planetary harm its business model.

Shell may claim the bar is high for acquisitions — but when you’re already living in the gutter, how high can it really be?

---

 

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor.

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.