THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 4 OCTOBER 2026
SLF-2007-077
The Sakhalin Papers LXVII: From Protocol Toward a Joint Venture — Shell and Gazprom Neft Plan Expansion Across Western Siberia and Beyond
Seven months after Shell and Gazprom signed their “Protocol on Strategic Global Cooperation”, Shell chief executive Peter Voser and Gazprom Neft chief Alexander Dyukov signed basic terms for something more concrete: a possible new joint venture covering Western Siberia, other Russian regions and even “third countries”. The distinction matters. No new venture was actually created by the June 2011 document. Shell and Gazprom Neft agreed to study one. By September Alexey Miller and Voser were still discussing how it might be established. But the direction was unmistakable. Four years after Shell lost control of Sakhalin II, the company was attempting to turn its relationship with Gazprom into a platform for expansion far beyond Sakhalin.
Archive reference: SLF-2007-077
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal authenticated records: Royal Dutch Shell plc Annual Report and Form 20-F 2011; US Securities and Exchange Commission filing record; Gazprom corporate records concerning the 2010 Strategic Global Cooperation Protocol and the June 2011 Gazprom Neft–Shell agreement
Contemporaneous reporting: Gazprom Neft press-service material; Dow Jones; Russian business press; contemporaneous Donovan archive
Judicial context: Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: The June 2011 agreement is described according to what it actually did: it established basic terms for examining the creation of a joint venture. It is not represented as proof that the contemplated venture had already been incorporated or that every proposed project proceeded. Corporate statements about technology, international assets and future cooperation are attributed to the companies making them. Commentary concerning strategic motives is identified as commentary.
Introduction
Yesterday’s file ended with a remarkable document.
On 30 November 2010 Shell and Gazprom signed a:
Protocol on Strategic Global Cooperation.
Its reach was deliberately broad.
Western Siberia.
The Russian Far East.
European downstream markets.
And possible Gazprom participation in Shell projects outside Russia.
The language suggested ambition.
But a protocol is not a project.
It does not drill a well.
It does not transfer an asset.
It does not create a producing company.
The next question was therefore obvious:
Would Shell and Gazprom turn the rhetoric into corporate machinery?
By June 2011, the answer was beginning to emerge.
Not through Sakhalin Energy itself.
Through Gazprom’s oil subsidiary:
Gazprom Neft.
1. First came an April meeting
On 12 April 2011, Alexey Miller and Peter Voser met in Moscow.
The companies discussed implementation of the global strategic-cooperation protocol.
The agenda included possible joint projects in Western Siberia and eastern Russia, downstream cooperation in Russia and Europe, and Gazprom participation in Shell projects in third countries.
There was also an immediate Sakhalin issue.
Japan had suffered the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami of 11 March 2011, followed by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Contemporary reporting recorded that Gazprom and Shell discussed increasing LNG deliveries to Japan from Sakhalin II. Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
The Sakhalin partnership therefore had two dimensions by spring 2011.
It was an operating LNG business.
And it was becoming the institutional foundation for something much larger.
2. 16 June 2011: Shell and Gazprom Neft sign the basic terms
Gazprom’s subsequent official corporate record dates the next major step to:
16 June 2011.
Gazprom Neft and Shell signed what Gazprom described as the:
Basic Terms and Conditions of the Agreement.
The parties would examine the possibility of creating a joint venture for projects in:
Western Siberia;
other Russian regions;
and:
“third countries.”
Gazprom repeated that description in later official releases, including its June 2012 account of continuing Shell cooperation. Gazprom
A contemporaneous Gazprom Neft press-service account carried by Russian business media described the same agreement and its intended geographical scope. BFM.ru – деловой портал
This was the bridge between the grand 2010 protocol and possible operating ventures.
3. A small but important correction: no new joint venture yet
The wording needs care.
Shell and Gazprom Neft did not announce on 16 June that a new joint venture had already been created.
They agreed to:
assess the potential of creating one.
The surviving English-language version of the announcement states that the companies would examine a joint venture to pursue projects inside and outside Russia.
Peter Voser described the agreement as a:
“launch pad for new joint projects”
in Russia and elsewhere.
Alexander Dyukov said working with Shell could give Gazprom Neft access to advanced technology and opportunities involving assets outside Russia. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
That distinction is central to this instalment.
The ambition was established.
The corporate vehicle was still being designed.
4. Western Siberia was not new territory for Shell
Shell was not entering Western Siberia for the first time.
It already had a substantial producing business there.
Shell and Gazprom Neft each held 50 per cent of the Salym development.
Shell’s 2011 Annual Report and Form 20-F records that Salym production averaged approximately:
165,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day
during 2011.
The same filing records Shell’s continuing 27.5 per cent interest in Sakhalin II. FinancialFilings
So the contemplated new joint venture was not an experiment between companies unfamiliar with one another.
There was already a working precedent.
Sakhalin II linked Shell with Gazprom.
Salym linked Shell with Gazprom Neft.
5. Salym provided a different model from Sakhalin
The contrast is worth making explicit.
At Sakhalin II, Shell had begun as the controlling shareholder and later became a minority partner after Gazprom acquired 50 per cent plus one share.
At Salym, Shell and Gazprom Neft were equal partners.
That meant Shell already possessed an example of Russian cooperation based on:
50–50 ownership.
The June proposal therefore did not simply extend the ownership structure imposed at Sakhalin II.
It pointed towards a different model:
equal partnership with the oil arm of Gazprom.
That was potentially much easier for Shell to present internally and externally as conventional commercial cooperation.
6. And Salym was producing at substantial scale
Shell’s SEC-filed 2011 annual report provides useful perspective.
Sakhalin II had reached planned plateau production of about:
360,000 boe per day
in 2010.
Its two LNG trains had been designed around approximately 9.6 million tonnes per annum, and Shell said optimisation increased production to:
10 million tonnes per annum
in 2011.
Salym, meanwhile, was producing approximately:
165,000 boe per day.
These were not marginal experimental assets.
Together they demonstrated that Shell’s Russian partnerships were already capable of producing hydrocarbons at material scale. FinancialFilings
The strategic-cooperation programme therefore rested on substantial operating experience.
7. Gazprom Neft said openly what it wanted from Shell
Alexander Dyukov’s statement accompanying the June agreement is unusually revealing.
Gazprom Neft wanted:
experience;
advanced technology;
and:
access to assets outside Russia.
That last element directly echoed the reciprocity principle discussed in yesterday’s file.
Gazprom’s senior management had already said that foreign companies obtaining access to Russian upstream projects should be prepared to offer access to attractive international opportunities in return.
The Gazprom Neft statement now expressed the same idea at operating-company level. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
Russia had the resource base.
Shell had international assets and technology.
The contemplated venture was intended to combine them.
8. Shell’s description was equally revealing
Voser did not describe the June agreement as damage limitation following Sakhalin.
He said it built upon the companies’:
“successful partnership”.
And he called it a potential:
“launch pad”
for projects in Russia and elsewhere. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
The choice of language matters.
Four and a half years earlier Shell had been fighting to retain control of its largest Russian investment.
Now its chief executive was treating the relationship that emerged from that confrontation as a base from which to expand.
That statement is corporate fact.
Why Shell regarded this as strategically sensible belongs partly to commentary.
But what Shell said publicly is unambiguous.
9. The proposed reach was deliberately wider than oil production
The agreement was not confined to drilling.
The contemporary Gazprom Neft press-service account said the companies wanted to develop cooperation across:
geological exploration;
production;
processing;
and:
marketing of hydrocarbons.
That meant the proposed partnership could span a substantial part of the oil and gas value chain. BFM.ru – деловой портал
Again, this closely reflected the November 2010 Global Strategic Cooperation Protocol.
The June agreement was beginning to give that framework an operating shape.
10. “Third countries” may be the most important phrase
Western Siberia was unsurprising.
Shell already operated there.
Other Russian regions were logical.
But the phrase:
“third countries”
deserves attention.
It meant the contemplated venture was not necessarily to be confined to Russia.
Gazprom Neft wanted the possibility of accompanying Shell into international assets.
That was a major conceptual shift from the early Sakhalin relationship.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Shell had brought international capital and expertise into a Russian project.
By 2011, Russia’s state-controlled energy companies were seeking routes outward.
Shell could potentially provide them.
11. Shell was not relying exclusively on Gazprom
Another fact prevents the story from becoming too neat.
Shell was also talking to:
Rosneft.
In July 2011, after the collapse of BP’s attempted strategic alliance with Rosneft, Peter Voser confirmed that Shell had held early-stage discussions with the Russian state and Rosneft about opportunities both inside and outside Russia.
He specifically acknowledged Shell’s interest in Arctic acreage, including the Russian Arctic.
Dow Jones contemporaneously reported Voser saying the discussions were still at an early stage and that any outcome would be speculative. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
That matters.
Shell’s strategy was not simply:
attach ourselves permanently to Gazprom.
A more defensible reading is:
secure access to Russian resources through relationships with the state-controlled companies capable of providing it.
Gazprom was central.
It was not necessarily exclusive.
12. September: the proposed joint venture returns to the agenda
On 15 September 2011, Alexey Miller and Peter Voser met again at Gazprom headquarters.
The official account, reproduced contemporaneously, states that the parties discussed implementation of the June agreement.
Specifically, they considered issues connected with:
creating a joint venture
for projects in:
Western Siberia;
other Russian regions;
and third countries. Oreanda News
Three months after the June signing, therefore, the venture was still prospective.
The companies were discussing its creation.
That reinforces the evidential distinction made earlier.
13. The September meeting broadened the discussion again
The Miller–Voser meeting also addressed wider cooperation in:
geological exploration;
hydrocarbon production;
processing;
and distribution;
in Russian and international oil and gas markets. Oreanda News
The progression can now be traced document by document.
November 2010
A protocol for global strategic cooperation.
April 2011
Detailed discussion of Russian and international opportunities.
June 2011
Basic terms for examining a new Shell–Gazprom Neft joint venture.
September 2011
Management discussions about actually creating that venture.
The relationship was moving incrementally from political language towards operating structures.
14. Shell’s own year-end filing shows how important Russia remained
Royal Dutch Shell filed its 2011 Annual Report and Form 20-F with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on:
15 March 2012. SEC
Its Russia section did not describe a company retreating from the country.
It recorded:
a 27.5 per cent interest in Sakhalin II;
a 50 per cent interest in Salym;
additional exploration interests in Russia;
and new exploration rights acquired during the year.
Shell also reported that total LNG sales rose to:
18.83 million tonnes in 2011,
with higher Sakhalin II production among the factors contributing to the increase. FinancialFilings
Russia remained embedded in Shell’s growth portfolio.
15. Sakhalin II was now performing better than its original nameplate figure
There is another small but telling detail in the annual report.
The original two-train Sakhalin LNG plant was designed around approximately:
9.6 mtpa.
After optimisation, Shell reported that production from the two trains reached:
10 mtpa
in 2011. FinancialFilings
The project over which Shell had fought so bitterly was not merely operational.
It was performing strongly.
That made the commercial logic of staying in Russia easier to understand.
Shell had lost control.
It had not lost the profitability or strategic value of its remaining share.
16. The proposed new partnership therefore rested on success, not failure alone
It is easy to frame every subsequent Shell-Gazprom agreement as an aftershock of the 2006 crisis.
That misses half the story.
By 2011 Shell had practical evidence that joint Russian ventures could work commercially.
Sakhalin II was exporting LNG.
Salym was producing approximately 165,000 boe per day.
Gazprom and Shell had established long-term LNG and pipeline-gas arrangements.
Both sides had experience working together.
The new venture discussions were therefore not occurring in the shadow of Sakhalin alone.
They were also being driven by the operating results that followed it.
17. But the political asymmetry had not vanished
This is where fact and commentary must be separated.
Nothing in the June agreement says:
Shell accepted a weaker political position in exchange for resource access.
Nothing in the September account says:
Gazprom was rewarding Shell for its behaviour at Sakhalin II.
No such proposition should be presented as documented fact.
But the institutional structure remained asymmetric.
Shell could provide technology, capital and international assets.
It could not grant itself licences to strategic Russian resources.
Russian state-controlled companies occupied the stronger position in determining access.
That structural fact helps explain why partnership became central to Shell’s Russian strategy.
It does not prove a secret bargain.
18. The High Court record remains relevant — but only as history
The surviving judicial record concerning Sakhalin II remains:
Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin).
Mr Justice Mitting delivered judgment on 17 March 2008.
The case concerned access to environmental information relating to possible UK financial support for Sakhalin II.
It recorded the project’s environmental significance and the ownership transition involving the Russian participant.
It did not consider the 2010 strategic protocol.
It did not consider the 2011 Gazprom Neft agreement.
It did not rule on Shell’s decision to expand its Russian partnerships.
And it made no finding that later commercial cooperation constituted compensation for Shell’s earlier loss of control. vLex
The court record supplies historical context.
It does not supply motive.
19. What was actually created in June 2011?
The documentary answer is narrower than the headline ambition.
The parties created:
an agreed framework for studying a joint venture.
They did not yet create the joint venture itself.
That distinction is supported twice:
first by the June wording;
and again by the September meeting, when Miller and Voser were still discussing the issues involved in creating the vehicle. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
This is an important example of why corporate announcements must be read literally.
“Agreement.”
“Joint venture.”
“Strategic cooperation.”
“Basic terms.”
These phrases can sound interchangeable in headlines.
Legally and commercially, they are not.
20. What the agreement nevertheless demonstrates
Even with that caution, the significance is substantial.
Shell and Gazprom had moved from:
a contested ownership restructuring;
to operating cooperation;
to LNG sales;
to global strategic cooperation;
to studying a new international joint venture.
That sequence was completed in less than five years.
The 2006 confrontation therefore did not produce a long-term commercial rupture.
It produced a different architecture for Shell’s Russian business.
One in which state-controlled Russian companies would be embedded much more deeply in Shell’s future plans.
Documentary Findings
Established
On 30 November 2010, Shell and Gazprom signed a Protocol on Strategic Global Cooperation covering Russian and international opportunities.
On 16 June 2011, Gazprom Neft and Shell signed basic terms governing study of a possible joint venture for projects in Western Siberia, other Russian regions and third countries. Gazprom later repeated that chronology in its official corporate records. Gazprom
The contemporary Gazprom Neft press-service account said the proposed cooperation covered exploration, production, processing and marketing of hydrocarbons. BFM.ru – деловой портал
Peter Voser described the agreement as a potential “launch pad” for joint projects in Russia and elsewhere. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
Alexander Dyukov said cooperation with Shell could provide Gazprom Neft with advanced technology, additional experience and access to assets outside Russia. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
On 15 September 2011, Alexey Miller and Peter Voser were still discussing the creation of the contemplated joint venture. Oreanda News
Shell’s 2011 Form 20-F recorded a 50 per cent interest in Salym, where production averaged about 165,000 boe/d, and a 27.5 per cent interest in Sakhalin II. FinancialFilings
Shell reported that Sakhalin II LNG production reached approximately 10 mtpa after optimisation of the two existing trains. FinancialFilings
Established broader context
Shell was simultaneously holding early-stage discussions with Rosneft concerning further Russian and international opportunities, including possible Arctic involvement. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
This shows that Shell’s Russian strategy was not confined exclusively to Gazprom.
Judicial boundary
The relevant High Court litigation concerned environmental-information disclosure and pre-dated the 2010–11 strategic agreements.
It did not adjudicate Shell’s later partnership strategy or the motives behind it. vLex
Not established
The June 2011 document did not itself establish the contemplated new joint venture.
No evidence examined here establishes that Shell was guaranteed any particular Russian field.
No evidence examined here establishes that Gazprom Neft obtained a specific overseas Shell asset under the June agreement.
No court finding establishes that later cooperation was compensation for Shell’s loss of control of Sakhalin II.
No public document examined here establishes a secret quid pro quo connecting the 2006 ownership transfer with the 2011 joint-venture negotiations.
Commentary
The language of the June agreement is revealing precisely because it was so practical.
The 2010 protocol had spoken of “strategic global cooperation.”
Seven months later the companies were asking the more difficult question:
What corporate structure would actually deliver it?
The answer under consideration was a joint venture.
Western Siberia provided an obvious starting point.
Shell and Gazprom Neft were already producing oil together at Salym.
The commercial relationship had operating history.
The technical relationship had substance.
The companies knew one another.
But “third countries” shows that the ambition went further.
Gazprom Neft did not merely want Shell’s help producing Russian oil.
It wanted the experience of working internationally.
Shell, meanwhile, wanted continuing access to a resource-rich country in which access to strategic acreage depended heavily upon relationships with state companies.
That is the bargain visible in the public record.
Not a secret bargain.
A structural one.
Resources and access on one side.
Technology, international reach and project experience on the other.
Sakhalin II had demonstrated how unequal the political relationship could become when circumstances changed.
Salym demonstrated that equal commercial partnership could nevertheless work.
By 2011 Shell was trying to build upon both lessons.
The irony remains unavoidable.
Five years earlier Shell had been struggling against the dilution of its largest Russian investment.
Now its chief executive was publicly calling cooperation with the same state-controlled corporate system a:
“launch pad”.
That does not mean Shell had forgotten Sakhalin.
It may mean Shell had learned from it.
Source Record
Royal Dutch Shell plc’s Annual Report and Form 20-F 2011, filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on 15 March 2012, records Shell’s Russian production interests, including Sakhalin II and Salym. SEC
US SEC — Royal Dutch Shell plc 2011 Form 20-F filing index
Gazprom’s official 21 June 2012 review of Shell cooperation confirms that Gazprom Neft and Shell signed the Basic Terms and Conditions on 16 June 2011, contemplating a joint venture for Western Siberia, other Russian regions and third countries. Gazprom
Gazprom — Gazprom and Shell develop cooperation in Russian and international oil and gas markets
The contemporaneous Gazprom Neft press-service account describes the purpose of the June agreement and records the statements of Alexander Dyukov and Peter Voser. BFM.ru – деловой портал
Royal Dutch Shell archive — Shell and Gazprom Neft to Implement Joint Projects
The 15 September 2011 Miller–Voser meeting record confirms that creation of the proposed venture was still under discussion three months later. Oreanda News
Contemporaneous Dow Jones reporting recorded Shell’s simultaneous early-stage discussions with Rosneft and Peter Voser’s expressed interest in Russian Arctic opportunities. Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
The relevant judicial background remains Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), judgment of Mr Justice Mitting dated 17 March 2008. vLex
Archive disclaimer: Agreements to investigate, study or establish future ventures are not treated as completed investments unless the documentary record establishes completion. Corporate statements are distinguished from independent reporting and from judicial findings. Strategic interpretation is identified as commentary rather than fact.
Site-wide disclaimer applies.
Next instalment
SLF-2007-078 — The Sakhalin Papers LXVIII: From Siberia to the Arctic — Shell Takes the Gazprom Partnership Into Russia’s New Frontier
The joint-venture discussions did not disappear.
They evolved.
By 2013, Shell and Gazprom were ready to move into territory considerably more politically and environmentally sensitive than Salym.
In April 2013, during Vladimir Putin’s visit to the Netherlands, Gazprom and Shell signed a memorandum covering possible cooperation on:
Russia’s Arctic shelf.
At the same time Shell and Gazprom Neft moved toward a 50–50 venture for liquids-rich shale development in Western Siberia, with the existing Salym organisation expected to provide initial oilfield services. Gazprom’s own corporate history records the Arctic cooperation memorandum; contemporaneous accounts record the parallel shale arrangement. Gazprom
The timing would be extraordinary.
Only months earlier, Shell’s own attempt to conquer the Alaskan Arctic had ended its 2012 drilling season amid a catalogue of operational setbacks.
Yet rather than retreat from the Arctic idea, Shell was preparing to pursue another Arctic frontier —
this time with Gazprom.
The next file will examine how the partnership born from the Sakhalin crisis moved north into the Russian Arctic, and why Shell remained determined to pursue high-risk frontier oil even after its Alaskan experience had gone badly wrong.
*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, the Shell DPA Files, "Shell and the Spies", the Shell Leaks files, as well as books written and published by John Donovan - Kindle eBooks. Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud. Toxic History of Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record — 550+ Articles, 110 Books, 40 Years. *All created and supported by internet wizz, Nick Gill.
