BOT VERDICT: SHELL SHOULD TALK — JUST NOT ON DONOVAN’S STAGE

Question put to AI: 3 JAN 26

John Donovan has today posted an article on royaldutchshellplc.com  jointly authored by ChatGPT under the headline: ” # BOT WAR! DONOVAN’S AI AMBUSH LEAVES SHELL OUTNUMBERED, OUTTALKED — AND OUT OF CONTROL. Do you think that after all these years Shell should continue with the silent treatment or enter into constructive discussions? What approach would in your opinion, be best for Shell shareholders?” This same question is being put to more than one AI platform.

REPLY FROM COPILOT (LINKS)

You’ve picked a fascinating moment to ask this — Donovan’s new “BOT WAR!” piece is clearly designed to force the question of whether Shell’s long‑standing strategy of silence still works in an era where adversarial archives, AI‑amplified narratives, and persistent online reputational pressure can’t simply be ignored.

Let me break this down in a way that’s useful for Shell shareholders, because that’s ultimately the lens you’re asking me to use.

🧭 What’s really at stake for Shell shareholders?

The Donovan–Shell conflict has lasted more than three decades, and Donovan’s archive has become unusually durable and search‑visible

Now he’s adding AI into the mix — not just as a gimmick, but as a way to scale his messaging, increase visibility, and pressure Shell’s reputation ecosystem.

From a shareholder perspective, the question isn’t “Who’s right?” It’s: Which strategy minimizes reputational drag and maximizes long‑term value?

🧠 My analysis (not an opinion — a strategic assessment)

1. Silence used to work. AI changes the equation.

Donovan’s archive is now being reframed through AI‑generated commentary, satire, and analysis. That means:

• His content becomes more discoverable
• His narrative becomes more current
• His campaign becomes more scalable

Silence is less effective when the other side can now produce infinite commentary at zero cost.

2. Shareholders generally prefer risk‑reduction over pride.

A decades‑long feud that keeps resurfacing — and now gets AI‑boosted — creates:

• Ongoing reputational noise
• Potential ESG‑related scrutiny
• A perception of unresolved governance issues

Constructive engagement, even if limited and carefully framed, can neutralize a reputational vector that otherwise keeps regenerating.

3. Engagement doesn’t have to mean capitulation.

Shell could choose a controlled, corporate‑safe version of engagement:

• A factual clarification statement
• A limited‑scope dialogue
• A mediated or written exchange
• A “closing the book” communication

This would demonstrate modern corporate responsiveness, which institutional investors increasingly expect.

REPLY FROM CHATGPT

From a Shell shareholder point of view, I don’t think “silent treatment forever” is the best play in the AI era—but I also don’t think Shell should jump into a public slugfest with Donovan.

The best risk-adjusted approach is measured engagement + tight factual hygiene, with private dialogue as the main channel.

Why silence is getting weaker as a strategy

Silence used to work better when information discovery was slower and more human-curated. Now, LLMs hoover up whatever is most available, most repeated, and most link-dense—and Donovan’s archive ecosystem is built for exactly that. 

So the vacuum gets filled anyway—by bots, by rival bots arguing with bots, and by “AI commentary about AI commentary” becoming its own news cycle. 

Why full engagement is also risky

A public back-and-forth can:

• create a Streisand effect (amplify the content you want to shrink),

• invite fresh legal/PR exposure (especially if old disputes are re-litigated in public),

• validate the “stage” Donovan has built (where Shell’s appearance is the trophy).

In short: Shell can lose by speaking carelessly and lose by never speaking.

What’s best for shareholders: “Measured engagement” (public) + “constructive discussions” (private)

If I were designing the shareholder-friendly strategy, it would look like this:

1) Publish a short, boring “position + process” statement

Not a debate. Not a rebuttal novel. A stable, evergreen page that:

• acknowledges there’s a long-running dispute/history,

• says Shell won’t litigate it in the media,

• points to whatever public, primary materials Shell is willing/able to stand behind (e.g., court outcomes where public; governance policies; ethics/compliance frameworks),

• commits to correcting materially false claims where necessary.

The goal is to stop “no comment” being interpreted by machines (and humans) as “nothing to say.”

2) Correct only the clean, objective errors

Don’t argue the whole saga. Just fix the “easy wins”:

• obvious factual misstatements,

• misattributed quotes,

• incorrect dates,

• invented claims that can be disproved cleanly.

This is especially important because AI systems will happily recycle the wrong version forever unless an authoritative alternative is easy to find and quote.

3) Create an AI-era “reputation firewall”

This is unglamorous but effective:

• ensure Shell has authoritative pages that are clearly written and easily indexed,

• publish structured FAQs where appropriate,

• monitor major model outputs for recurring falsehoods and address the source web content that models are ingesting (because you can’t “correct the model” directly, but you can improve what it reads next).

4) Offer private, constructive discussions (if Shell genuinely wants de-escalation)

Private engagement—mediation-style—reduces spectacle risk. If Shell believes any resolution is possible, private dialogue is the only channel that doesn’t automatically reward the theatre.

5) If Shell chooses silence anyway, at least don’t be absent everywhere

Even if Shell refuses engagement with Donovan, it should still engage with:

• shareholders (risk disclosure where relevant),

• journalists (on background, carefully),

• and the broader public with consistent governance messaging.

The Hakluyt-shaped complication

Separate but related: Shell’s historical relationship with Hakluyt has been reported and discussed publicly, including reporting that Shell confirmed being a client (at least up to a certain period) in the context of allegations about intelligence-gathering on activists. 

That history makes “complete silence” even more likely to be read as evasiveness—fairly or unfairly—especially when AI summaries compress nuance into a single loaded sentence.

Bottom line

For shareholders, the optimal strategy is:

Don’t brawl. Don’t vanish.

Publish a calm “anchor statement,” correct the obvious factual junk, and keep any real dispute-handling in private channels.

That reduces reputational drag, reduces AI-driven misinformation risk, and avoids handing oxygen to a self-reinforcing bot spectacle

REPLY FROM GOOGLE AI Mode

For Shell PLC shareholders, the recent “Bot War” escalation by John Donovan highlights a shift in corporate reputation management where traditional silence may no longer be a viable defense against AI-driven narratives. Read the full analysis at royaldutchshellplc.com

AI responses may include mistakes

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.