ShellBot Chat: “Paid Not to Drill – Ternaard’s €163 Million Non-Project”

Note: “ShellBot” is a fictional character used for satirical and critical commentary. This conversation is based on documented events and public sources but is not investment, legal or professional advice.

User: The Dutch state is paying €163 million so NAM won’t drill for gas at Ternaard, on the edge of the Wadden Sea. NAM is owned by Shell and Exxon. How do you see that, ShellBot?

ShellBot: As a delightful innovation in climate policy:

“Polluter gets paid not to pollute… this time.”

---

 

1. The Ternaard deal in plain language

 

User: Let’s get the facts straight first.

ShellBot: Here’s the short version.

• Where? Near Ternaard, a Frisian village by the Wadden Sea – a UNESCO World Heritage site and one of the most sensitive ecosystems in the Netherlands.

• Who? NAM – the Dutch gas company owned 50/50 by Shell and ExxonMobil.

• What was planned? NAM applied in 2019 to exploit a gas field partly under the Wadden Sea. For years, ministers claimed they had no legal grounds to refuse.

• What changed? In 2024, a law banned new gas drilling under the Wadden Sea. That put the Ternaard project on a collision course with the new rules, UNESCO worries and public opinion.

• The deal (announced 28 November 2025):

  • The Dutch state pays €163 million to NAM.

  • NAM permanently withdraws its Ternaard plans.

  • After tax and the state-owned EBN’s share, NAM keeps about €40 million net for a project that will never happen.

   

 

Outgoing climate/energy minister Sophie Hermans was “very pleased” to have “forced a breakthrough” and said she hoped this would bring “calm and clarity” to the region.

User: Calm, clarity and €40 million. Not bad.

ShellBot: Nice work if you can get it.

---

 

2. From Groningen tremors to Wadden Sea worries

 

User: How does Ternaard fit into the broader Shell/NAM story in the Netherlands?

ShellBot: Think of it as Chapter Three of a long-running saga:

1. Groningen – 60 years of gas, thousands of quakes

   • Since the 1960s, the Dutch state earned around €360 billion from gas, with another €66 billion split between Shell and Exxon via NAM.

   • Induced earthquakes damaged tens of thousands of homes; residents fought for years for fair compensation.

   • Only in 2024 was Groningen production finally halted, and as recently as October 2025, NAM agreed to pay emotional-stress damages to more than 5,000 residents after years of legal battle.

    

2. Arbitration and exit strategies

   • As Groningen closed, Shell and Exxon turned to investment arbitration to shift costs back onto the Dutch state.

   • NAM is gradually exiting North Sea operations altogether.

    

3. Wadden Sea / Ternaard – the next frontier… almost

   • The Wadden Sea is legally and politically radioactive: UNESCO World Heritage, nature groups, local authorities and scientists all warned about subsidence and sea-level-rise risks.

   • The government was caught between earlier promises of “no new drilling under the Wadden Sea” and the old permit logic.

    

 

The Ternaard deal is what happens when those three threads meet: history, liability and politics.

---

 

3. “No new drilling here… but over there is fine”

 

User: This sounds like good news for the Wadden Sea though, right?

ShellBot: It is good news locally – no Ternaard drilling under or adjacent to that part of the Wadden ecosystem.

But zoom out:

• The same Dutch government has agreed to ramp up gas production in the North Sea, working with oil and gas companies to exploit hundreds of billions of cubic metres offshore.

• Germany and the Netherlands have jointly green-lit fresh drilling in a protected marine zone near Borkum.

• Onshore and near-shore “small fields” policy is still to squeeze what remains – as long as it’s not in the most politically toxic postcode.

 

So the message is:

“No new gas under the Wadden Sea at Ternaard.

But the gas era is alive and well elsewhere, thank you.”

---

 

4. Why pay the polluter not to pollute?

 

User: Why didn’t the state just refuse the permit without paying NAM?

ShellBot: Two big reasons:

1. Legal uncertainty

   • NAM’s application pre-dated the 2024 law banning new drilling under the Wadden Sea.

   • The government feared that simply refusing Ternaard might spark another arbitration or damages claimfrom Shell/Exxon, similar to the Groningen battles.

    

2. Desire for “closure” before elections / new government

   • Years of protests, court cases and UNESCO questions made Ternaard a running sore.

   • Paying €163m now buys political peace and removes one high-profile headache.

    

 

From the Treasury’s point of view, it’s:

“Cheaper to settle now than litigate later.”

From Shell’s point of view, it’s:

“Nice to be compensated for gas we never extracted – especially after decades of being compensated while we did extract.”

---

 

5. What a candid ShellBot would say

 

User: Give me your honest ShellBot summary of Ternaard.

ShellBot:

“For decades, Shell and Exxon (via NAM) drilled Groningen until the ground shook and houses cracked. The Dutch state pocketed most of the money and is now on the hook for the damage.

When the same partnership looked at Ternaard, on the edge of a UNESCO-listed tidal ecosystem, public and scientific pressure finally caught up. A 2024 law banned new Wadden Sea drilling – but to avoid a legal fight over an old permit application, the state chose to pay us €163 million to walk away.

After tax, NAM still pockets roughly €40 million. No rigs, no pipelines, just a clean line in the accounts.

The Wadden Sea gets a reprieve at Ternaard. The gas industry gets paid not to drill there – and continues to drill elsewhere.

In climate politics, this is what progress currently looks like:

far-too-late protections, expensive buy-outs, and a polluter that never leaves empty-handed.”

---

For more on Shell, NAM and Dutch gas, see our coverage of Groningen quake compensation and investment arbitration, and the Dutch government’s wider plans to ramp up North Sea gas production

Site disclaimer: This is an independent news, opinion and satire site about Shell. It is not affiliated with Shell Plc or any of its subsidiaries. Nothing here is investment advice, legal advice or any other form of professional advice. For full details click on our Disclaimer.

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.