Loeb Says Shell is a Frankenstein of Oil, LNG, Renewables & Gas Stations — Time to Chop Off a Limb

 

Third Point, Shell & the Art of Corporate Pressure

Activist investor Daniel Loeb of Third Point LLC hasn’t just been stirring the pot—he’s been threatening to dismantle the entire kitchen. Loeb is sticking to his call that Royal Dutch Shell should break itself apart. Not because Shell’s ambitious, but because its ambition is now a jigsaw puzzle nobody asked for.

As Reuters reported, Loeb “praises Shell moves, sticks by calls for break-up” even as Shell shifts its head office and simplifies its shareholder structure. 

What Loeb’s Proposals Actually Are

Here’s what Third Point wants Shell to do:

• Split off its LNG / Gas / Deep-water Oil legacy business from its Renewables / New Energy / Marketing arms.

• Have a “different corporate structure” such that each division can move nimbly in response to policy changes, market waves, and investor demands. 

• Increase “capital return” to shareholders (i.e. dividends, buybacks) rather than spreading cash thin over too many units. 

Loeb first took a sizable position in Shell (~US$750 million) in late 2021. 

Shell’s Reaction & the Stakes

Shell has made some moves Loeb likes: moving headquarters (from the Netherlands to the UK), consolidating share classes, pushing its energy transition strategy (“Powering Progress”) etc. These changes are seen by Loeb as small boy scout badges on the path to the big work of structural change. 

But not everyone is cheering. The board has suggested break-up is more symbolic than practical, warning of risks to scale, integration, and legacy business strength.

Deep Context: Why This Matters More Than Shareholder Drama

Here are the broader forces making this breakup demand louder:

• Energy Transition Pressure: Shell is trying to juggle oil, gas, renewables, chemicals, power marketing, etc., simultaneously. Regulatory regimes are pulling in different directions, carbon taxes rising, investor ESG demands growing. If your business is being stretched in ten directions, maybe cut some off.

• Investor Fatigue: Shell’s returns haven’t satisfied everyone. Some investors have pointed out that despite its size and global footprint, Shell’s returns on invested capital have been unimpressive in periods. Third Point is not alone in saying skeletons are rattling.

• Geopolitical & Market Stress: The Russia-Ukraine war, energy suly disruptions, inflation, volatile commodity prices — all make it harder for a giant sensitive in every domain. The more complex your structure, the more vulnerable you become to external shocks.

• ESG / Institutional Investors Watching: Big investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, and sovereign wealth funds are pushing companies to simplify, disclose, and focus on climate transition. A sprawling empire that tries to be everything can be bad optics when governments and public opinion care about emissions, renewables, and “just transition.”

WTF Shell?

• Shell appears to be trying to ride two horses: its old fossil fuel income engine and its newer green energy aspirations. But worse, those horses are heading in different directions. Loeb is saying: let one horse go, or you’ll be dragged.

• When Shell says “investment in clean energy” but also keeps making decisions that reinforce oil/gas dependency, it’s like someone promising to quit sugar and then eating chocolate cake every night. Investors are watching.

• Symbolism isn’t nothing: moving HQ, changing share classes—that’s not trivial. But breaking up? That’s structural. That’s admitting you can’t be great at everything. At this scale, every inefficiency costs billions.

Latest / Updates

As of mid-2025:

• Shell has seen periods of very high profits thanks to oil/gas price surges, but also criticism for under-delivering on climate goals and capital discipline.

• Some funds are pushing companies like Shell not just to “set net zero targets” but to show credible pathways (divestments, spin-outs, break-ups).

• Loeb and Third Point continue to hold their stake; while Shell has expressed openness to engaging with shareholders, the company has not committed to any full breakup.

• There’s increased media scrutiny over whether Shell’s structure is too complex to manage, especially given volatile markets.

  Timeline: Third Point vs. Shell

   

  October 2021

  • Third Point reveals stake in Shell (~$750 million).

  • Loeb calls Shell “incoherent” and argues it should split into at least two companies: one for legacy oil & gas, another for renewables/transition.

  • Public letters accuse Shell of “moving too slowly” and being “spread too thin.”

    (Energy Voice)

   

  November–December 2021

  • Shell moves headquarters from The Netherlands to London and simplifies its share structure.

  • Loeb praises the move but says it doesn’t go far enough.

  February 2022

  • Russia invades Ukraine. Energy markets surge. Shell posts windfall profits.

  • Loeb reiterates that Shell’s complexity prevents investors from fully valuing the company, even in boom times.

   

  May 2022

  • Loeb praises Shell’s structural reforms but “sticks by calls for breakup.”

  • Says Shell should unlock more value by separating businesses.

    (Reuters)

   

  2023

  • Shell profits exceed $40 billion (a record).

  • Critics, including Loeb, argue windfalls were not reinvested fast enough into renewables.

  • Pressure mounts from ESG-minded investors like BlackRock to show progress on transition.

   

  2024

  • Shell begins scaling back certain green investments, arguing for “disciplined” capital allocation.

  • Loeb re-emerges in press interviews, saying Shell risks “falling between two stools” — too dirty for ESG funds, too complicated for fossil investors.

   

  2025 (current)

  • Loeb and Third Point maintain their stake.

  • Shell continues to resist a full breakup, arguing that integration across oil, LNG, and renewables makes it stronger.

  • Debate continues in financial press: is Shell better as one behemoth, or as split entities that could each be more focused and more accountable?

   

  Key Themes

  • Loeb’s argument: Shell is a Frankenstein — too complex, under-valued, unfocused. Break it up.

  • Shell’s argument: Integration gives scale, synergies, and flexibility. Breakup would weaken the business.

  • Investor divide: Big funds (BlackRock, Vanguard, Norges Bank) want Shell to transition, but some also fear a breakup would create volatility.

   

Disclaimer

Warning: satire ahead. The criticisms are pointed, the humour intentional, and the facts stubbornly real. Quotes are reproduced word-for-word from trusted sources. As for authorship—John Donovan and AI both claim credit, but the jury’s still out on who was really in charge.

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.