THE SHELL FILES MEET THE SHELL FILES: Another Independent Investigation, Another Debate About Corporate Accountability
Different investigators. Different evidence. Different editorial perspectives. Yet the same remarkable title.
For almost forty years, this website has assembled what many readers have come to regard as “the Shell Files”—an archive of internal emails, confidential documents, court papers, whistleblower testimony and investigative reporting spanning decades of Shell’s corporate history.
Entirely independently, the respected Amsterdam-based research organisation SOMO has now launched its own investigative series under exactly the same title:
The Shell Files
The coincidence is more than merely amusing—it neatly illustrates how documentary evidence continues to shape very different investigations into the same multinational company.
The two projects are entirely unrelated. They originate from different sources, examine different issues and have different editorial objectives. Yet both rely on documentary evidence rather than corporate publicity, and both seek to illuminate aspects of Shell’s global operations that might otherwise receive less public attention.
The latest instalment of SOMO’s The Shell Files turns its attention not to transfer pricing, but to one of Europe’s longest-running industrial controversies: the Groningen gas field.
The Groningen Legacy
For decades the Groningen gas field generated enormous wealth for both the Dutch State and its partners, Shell and ExxonMobil.
It also became associated with thousands of induced earthquakes that damaged homes, disrupted communities and gave rise to one of the largest compensation programmes in Dutch history.
Gas production has now ceased.
The debate over responsibility has not.
Billions Generated – Billions Distributed
According to SOMO, Shell and ExxonMobil, through their joint venture Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM), earned an estimated €64.7 billion during nearly sixty years of Groningen gas production.
SOMO also notes that the two companies reported approximately US$51 billion in combined profits during 2024 while returning almost US$60 billion to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks.
The report argues that these shareholder distributions should be viewed alongside the companies’ remaining obligations in Groningen.
Outstanding Commitments?
SOMO contends that Shell and ExxonMobil have stopped making certain agreed financial contributions connected with earthquake recovery following closure of the gas field.
Among the figures cited are:
- approximately €550 million relating to strengthening earthquake-damaged homes;
- approximately €167 million linked to the regional Perspectief voor Groningen programme.
SOMO argues that these commitments should continue irrespective of whether gas production has ended.
The Arbitration
Adding another layer to the dispute, Shell and ExxonMobil have commenced arbitration proceedings against the Dutch State seeking compensation relating to the earlier-than-planned closure of the Groningen field.
Legally, that arbitration is separate from the compensation programmes.
Publicly, however, many observers inevitably view the two issues together: communities continue dealing with the consequences of decades of gas extraction while the companies pursue legal claims against the State.
Who is SOMO?
Readers should understand the perspective of the organisation behind this report.
SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations), based in Amsterdam, openly describes itself as an advocacy research organisation rather than a neutral think tank. Its stated mission is to challenge what it regards as the harmful power of multinational corporations and to promote a global economic system that is equitable, democratic, transparent and environmentally sustainable.
SOMO explicitly argues that the prevailing doctrine of maximising shareholder value should give way to an economic model placing greater emphasis on workers, communities and the environment.
That philosophy naturally shapes the questions SOMO investigates and the conclusions it reaches.
However, it would be simplistic to dismiss its work on that basis alone. Like many respected investigative NGOs, SOMO’s reports are typically detailed, heavily referenced and based on documentary evidence that is open to public scrutiny.
Readers should therefore judge both the evidence presented and the organisation’s stated perspective.
Shell’s Position
Shell has consistently stated that it takes its legal responsibilities seriously and has publicly acknowledged the history of Groningen, the earthquake damage and the associated compensation and strengthening programmes.
The arbitration concerns legal and contractual issues surrounding closure of the field rather than constituting an admission of wrongdoing.
As with many long-running corporate disputes, this remains an active and contested matter.
Another Piece of a Larger Picture
What makes this report particularly interesting is that it joins a growing body of independent investigations into Shell from entirely different directions.
Recent years have seen reporting and investigations by Reuters, the Financial Times, OCCRP, numerous courts, parliamentary inquiries and now SOMO’s own The Shell Files project.
These organisations are independent of one another.
They rely on different evidence.
They pursue different objectives.
Yet collectively they demonstrate that Shell continues to attract an exceptional degree of scrutiny from journalists, researchers, regulators, campaign organisations and former insiders alike.
The Bottom Line
Whether one agrees with SOMO’s broader philosophy or with Shell’s emphasis on creating long-term shareholder value, the Groningen dispute raises legitimate questions about corporate responsibility after decades of profitable resource extraction.
The coincidence that both this website and SOMO have independently adopted the title The Shell Files is almost symbolic.
Different investigators.
Different evidence.
Different editorial viewpoints.
Yet both projects reflect the enduring importance of documentary evidence in understanding one of the world’s largest energy companies.
In the end, readers should judge the evidence—not the slogans.
