“And when two high-profile political figures linked indirectly to Shell — Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson — both find themselves arrested on suspicion of misconduct involving sensitive information and Epstein connections, the pattern becomes difficult to dismiss as coincidence. At some point, coincidence begins to look like culture.”

By John Donovan

---

DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and commentary only. It is not financial or legal advice. All references to Peter Mandelson’s arrest relate to publicly reported developments as of 24 February 2026. Peter Mandelson denies wrongdoing. Shell plc is not accused in this article of criminal conduct in relation to Mandelson. Readers should consult primary sources and conduct their own research.

---

There is something almost comforting about the predictability of Britain’s establishment ecosystem.

Politicians leave office.

They acquire “advisory” roles.

Energy giants acquire “insight.”

Everyone insists there is nothing to see.

And then, occasionally, there is.

As of 24 February 2026, Peter Mandelson has been released on bail by the Metropolitan Police after being arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The investigation reportedly concerns allegations that sensitive government information may have been shared with Jeffrey Epstein. Mandelson denies wrongdoing.

The arrest follows the collapse of Global Counsel — the lobbying and advisory firm he co-founded — which entered administration earlier this month after what administrators described as a “rapid and sudden loss of clients,” including Shell.

The revolving door has rarely spun so noisily.

---

Global Counsel: When Access Is the Product

Peter Mandelson, the former Labour cabinet minister and EU trade commissioner, co-founded Global Counsel in 2010. The firm specialised in advising multinational corporations navigating political risk and regulatory landscapes.

Shell was reportedly one of its high-profile clients.

According to reporting, Global Counsel lobbied the UK government on Shell’s behalf during the early months of the current Labour administration — an arrangement that inevitably raised eyebrows when Mandelson later served (briefly) as the UK’s ambassador to the United States.

Critics questioned whether private advisory interests and public diplomatic duties could comfortably coexist. Mandelson rejected suggestions of impropriety.

Now, in light of the police investigation, those earlier concerns look less like partisan nitpicking and more like a warning light on the dashboard that nobody wanted to acknowledge.

---

Shell and the Intelligence Nexus: Enter Hakluyt

To understand why Shell’s proximity to politically connected operators raises persistent questions, one must revisit an older, murkier chapter.

In January 2010, this website published an article titled “Hakluyt – Notorious Spying for Oil Giants Shell and BP.” The piece examined the private intelligence firm Hakluyt & Company, founded by former MI6 officers and reportedly linked in its early years to major oil interests including Shell and BP.

Hakluyt’s model was discreet: intelligence gathering, geopolitical analysis, risk forecasting — the sort of services corporations prefer not to discuss at annual general meetings.

While there has never been evidence that Shell engaged in unlawful espionage through Hakluyt, the optics were always awkward: ex-spies advising oil giants on political landscapes in regions where environmental protests and regulatory battles were intensifying.

Fast-forward to 2026 and we find Shell once again entangled — not illegally, but reputationally — in a network of political operators whose judgment is now under criminal investigation.

Patterns matter.

---

The Epstein Shadow

Both Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson have, in different ways and at different times, faced scrutiny over associations with Jeffrey Epstein.

Now both are subjects of police investigations concerning alleged misconduct in public office involving sensitive information. Both deny wrongdoing.

Shell is not accused of participating in or facilitating any such conduct.

But Shell has, at various times, benefited from relationships with politically connected individuals who later became liabilities.

That is not criminality.

It is risk management failure.

---

Corporate Governance Meets Political Gravity

Shell plc is not a minor player. It is one of the largest energy companies in the world, with major institutional investors including BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street.

It operates under intense scrutiny:

• Climate litigation across Europe

• Long-standing environmental controversies in Nigeria

• Investor pressure over transition strategy

• Regulatory oversight across multiple jurisdictions

In that context, reputational exposure is not a footnote — it is material.

When a lobbying firm co-founded by a politically exposed person collapses amid scandal, and that firm had counted Shell among its clients, questions inevitably arise:

• What due diligence was performed?

• Were conflict-of-interest risks assessed adequately?

• Was access valued more highly than optics?

None of these questions imply wrongdoing.

But governance is not about avoiding illegality. It is about avoiding foreseeable embarrassment.

---

The Revolving Door Problem

Britain’s political-corporate ecosystem has long been criticised for its porous boundaries.

Ministers become advisers.

Advisers become lobbyists.

Lobbyists become ambassadors.

Ambassadors return to consultancy.

Shell did not invent this system.

But it participates in it.

And when two high-profile political figures linked indirectly to Shell — Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson — both find themselves arrested on suspicion of misconduct involving sensitive information and Epstein connections, the pattern becomes difficult to dismiss as coincidence.

At some point, coincidence begins to look like culture.

---

Was It Worth It?

There is no evidence Shell acted unlawfully in its dealings with Global Counsel or Peter Mandelson.

But legality is a low bar for a company that markets itself as a pillar of governance discipline and ESG responsibility.

The sharper question is this:

Why does one of the world’s largest energy companies repeatedly find itself orbiting political figures whose judgment later implodes?

Is this strategic networking?

Or is it institutional complacency dressed up as sophistication?

When Global Counsel collapsed after losing clients in the wake of Mandelson-Epstein revelations, Shell quietly distanced itself.

Quiet exits are tidy.

Reputational associations are not.

---

Final Thought

If the Hakluyt era symbolised discreet intelligence-adjacent risk management, and the Global Counsel episode symbolises high-level lobbying proximity, the through-line is unmistakable:

Shell has consistently sought influence at the intersection of power and information.

Sometimes that influence delivers access.

Sometimes it delivers embarrassment.

In 2026, with police investigations circling former ambassadors and trade envoys, the question facing Shell’s board and its major institutional investors is no longer whether these associations were legal.

It is whether they were wise.

And wisdom, unlike oil, cannot be drilled.

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.