Jump to content

Talk:Shell plc/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Image:Tankstationmijnsheerenland.png

I think this image is useful to illustrate the history of Shell. User Rangoon11 disagrees. There are several images of current Shell petrol stations so why couldn't this be added? Historical images can't be compared to current images in quality terms because of the limits of the photographic equipment at the time. 82.170.244.87 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons for my objection. The first and most important is that there is no room for an additional photo in the History section at present. That may of course change as text is added to the section. Secondly, if there were space for an additional image, far better ones could be selected than an image of a petrol station in the Netherlands in the 1970s: there are already too many images of both petrol stations and European (and particularly Dutch) aspects of the company's activities, additional images should where possible reflect the wide intenational scope of the company's activities and history, and the fact that service stations are only a small part of the company's activities. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead problems

(Comment from uninvolved editor)You know, Rangoon, I was looking at this[1] and I think you need to compromise. That is so top-heavy. It's good info, just ... why not cooperate to reach a better consensus?—Djathinkimacowboy 15:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The company is not Dutch, but Anglo-Dutch. 2. Splitting the opening sentence into two is pointless, the existing wording is longstanding and fine. Changing wording for sake of it, when there is no improvement, is not constructive.
Presumably you have come here as a result of watching my talk page or edit history, rather than as a result of watching this article (which you have never edited before). I sincerely hope this does not mark the start of a pattern of you following me around to other articles in order to challenge my edits. I had hoped that we had established a more positive relationship as a result of the Columbo mediation. This is disappointing. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
No, no, not a challenge of any kind and a mere curiosity for me. What I was hoping to do was covince you not to do anything that might be seen as edit warring. This article means nothing to me. What caught my eye is that you seem to get into this problem a great deal. But I am not following you--just wondering when you might be getting back to Columbo.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Spammer Scam Warning

As of now the article is being cited as 'evidence' of s spammer's scam. If you are visiting the article in response to surprise email, it is merely an attempt to use Wikipedia's reputation and credibility to ROB you. Shanen (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Arctic drilling

The relevant section states: Since the 1988 Kulluk oil spill located off the coast of Alaska in the Beaufort Sea; the company admits the dangers of pack ice and notices, that "No one has yet fully determined how to clean up an oil spill in pack ice or broken ice"

This is misleading because although the rig is technically in Alaska since 1988, it is owned by Shell only since 2005. Even more, from 1993 to refurbishment by Shell the rig was mothballed. At the same time, the rig operated in Arctics already five years before relocation to Alaska. However, as this article is about Shell and not about the rig, this paragraphs needs clarification. Beagel (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This subsection was modified accordingly. Beagel (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversies

"Shell's compliance to corporate social responsibility also includes its UK and international Shell LiveWIRE programmes. This initiative has over 26 years experience of encouraging young people to start and develop their own businesses in the UK and 26 other countries in the world" How on earth is this a controversy? Sounds like it comes straight from Shell's PR department. Should be removed, surely? Manbilong (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

Removal of the main article Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell is reminded in the Category talk:Royal Dutch Shell controversies. In my opinion it deserves place. Watti Renew (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure of what you mean here. Can you clarify further?--Soulparadox (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

What is Royal Dutch Shell doing in sustainability engineering?

I would like the major fossil fuel company articles to indicate how they intend to transition to carbon-neutral fuels such as this work and "power to gas." I need to know whether they support emerging chemical engineering research such as catalysts for carbon-neutral transportation fuels, whether they are working on compressed air energy storage such as [2] and [3], airborne wind turbines such as [4], and on extracting carbon from seawater such as this PARC method in order to solve their long-term corporate viability issues. I do not believe it is possible to have a truly balanced article on a fossil fuel company without some indication of their long term prospects. Tim AFS (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I also need to know whether they are developing electrical grid energy storage in their existing expended oil and gas caverns along with mineshafts and mines for pumped-storage hydroelectricity where ordinary hydroelectric power is unavailable. Tim AFS (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

TOC issue?

Can anyone else work out why the geographical locations do not appear in the TOC under "Oil and gas related activities"? Any help would be appreciated.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it has a "TOC limit|limit=3" template (in double curly-braces, which I don't reproduce here) which limits the number of header indents appearing in the table of contents to three levels. If you take that out, the TOC lists all == sections. Tim AFS (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Top Company in Revenue?

We seem to have an inconsistency in the introduction paragraph between this page and List of companies by revenue. Emann15 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two separate numbers to consider: revenue, and revenue plus other income. On [5], Shell lists Revenue as $467,... million as their revenue and $481,... million as their revenue plus other income. For the infobox on the side of the page, only revenue is listed. On [List of companies by revenue], the revenue listed is actually revenue plus other income. Further, ExxonMobil's number listed is also revenue plus other income. This is the scheme chosen for that page and should be the scheme we use to define a company as the highest revenue or second highest (if you think the revenue plus other income is incorrect for that page, I'd see what they have to say on the talk page). Also, the Forbes link referenced an article from July 2012, while the previously linked annual report is through the end of 2012 and more up to date. Emann15 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
In any case, the revenue (with or without other income) figure of $451.235 billion is incorrect. This should be corrected. Abhishek (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on appearing on Wikipedia's main page as a "Did you know..." listing. I've been involved in the DYK process and so I know the time it takes and the coordination required between between editors...let's just say it isn't the easiest thing to accomplish. You deserve recognition, appreciation and applause. Thank you very much to all the contributing editors who made this listing possible.:The Very Best of Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Royal Dutch Shell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Royal Dutch Shell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes accuracy

The first footnote here states, 'Google. Retrieved 10 July 2013.' ... but the statistics in the article are for 2015. Indeed, when I checked the link, the statistics are for 2015, so it just seems unlikely that the information was retrieved in 2013. I'm not sure either how that happens or how it is fixed,but good if that can be correct and consistent.94.210.130.103 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is very simple. Information was retrieved from Google Finance back in 2013. After that Google Finance has updated information in its website. It is very easy to fix: you can added the archive link to citation template, or even better, you can update the information in this article according to the current information and change the access-date of this reference to today's date. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Energy generation? Probably meant "Power generation."

The article includes the term "Energy generation" where the term "Power generation" must have been intended. Energy and power differ in that power is equal to energy divided by time: P = E/t

The laws of thermodynamics prohibit the generation of electricity, therefore the statement is in error.

Energy may be mined, sold, or liberated, but may never be generated. The movement of energy over a period of time is called "power". Shell generates power by liberating energy, rather than actually generating energy.

The same is true for your electric company - when the electric company sells you electricity, it generates power to do so.

Suggested fix is to change the word energy to power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3104:4400:B0D2:BF66:B195:9F29 (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Shell predicted dangers of climate change in 1980s and knew fossil fuel industry was responsible

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/shell-predicted-climate-change-fossil-fuel-industry-1980s-global-warming-oil-a8294636.html

John Cummings (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Indy isn't an RS. There is much wrong with it's slant on the "reprot". When read without slant, the report is unremarkable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@William M. Connolley:, can you say why The Independent isn't a reliable source for this topic and what you mean by 'slant'? Is Scientific American a reliable source for this topic? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shell-grappled-with-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Shell logo.svg

File:Shell logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be deleted

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab in the article should be deleted if no notes can be added to it as in my opinion it is pointless having an empty tab within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and deleted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Money text

I've noticed that there has been extremely inconsistent ways of writing money. 1.6 billion US dollars could be written as $1.6 billion, $1.6bn, or $1.6 billion US. Yet all three forms show up. If no one has any objections, I will standardized the format of all dollar values to be in the form of $1.6 billion or US$1.6 billion (of course, would use A$ for Australian, or whatever else would be necessary to be accurate).TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Premature move

The page move is premature, and should be reverted. Sadly, I stuffed up re-moving it so it needs an admin to do it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the move was premature and, at least, needed a proper discussion. The long-standing name should be restored and proper discussion should take place. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved headquarter to London and ditch the "Royal Dutch" off the name

Shell's shareholders Back Headquarters Move to U.K. 2021

shareholders voted overwhelmingly on Friday in favour of a plan to end the company's dual share structure and move its headquarters to London from The Hague.

With roughly 58% of outstanding shares cast, a preliminary tally showed 99% of shareholders supported a special resolution enabling the corporate structure change.

The proposal, which would also see the company renamed Shell PLC, losing the "Royal Dutch" title it has had for more than a century, requires approval by 75% of shareholder votes cast

https://www.naturalgasworld.com/shell-to-drop-royal-dutch-move-to-london-press-94755

https://www.ft.com/content/d932a462-2b31-479a-bd08-6e8abc02c375

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/royal-dutch-shell-plc-shareholders-set-approve-move-london-2021-12-10/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theregan (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It was voted, but the decision needs to be implemented first. It does not mean, that the company has been renamed or the headquarters has been moved yet. Beagel (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The move is not expected before early 2022: see https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/royal-dutch-shell-plc-shareholders-set-approve-move-london-2021-12-10/ Dormskirk (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Doubt on claim that Shell is the biggest LNG producer in the world

The article says that "Shell acquired BG Group in 2016, making it the world's largest producer of LNG." Shell is certainly a large trader meaning it buys large quantities of LNG and sells it under long-term contracts (see an example here: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/tellurian-signs-lng-supply-deals-with-shell/), it also runs a substantial fleet of LNG ships (https://www.shell.com/business-customers/trading-and-supply/shell-shipping-and-maritime/our-shipping-fleet.html) - but for production, meaning liquefaction of natural gas, I don't see the evidence that Shell owns more capacity than any other entity. It looks like qatargas is bigger: Qatargas mxschumacher (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the claim. Dormskirk (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Name has been changed to Shell plc

According to the official news agency in the Netherlands, the ANP, the company really lost its designation "Royal" since today (i.e. 21 December 2022) and has with it been renamed from Royal Dutch Shell to Shell.[6] Also, according to the company's official website, the name is changed from Royal Dutch Shell plc to Shell plc on 20 December 2021. This change has now come into effect since today, i.e. 21 December 2022.[7] Therefore, could the name of the website please be changed to the new name?.Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that it should now be moved: I have requested deletion of the redirect to permit this. Dormskirk (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

UNDUE focus on how "pro-environment" Shell is

A single-purpose account keeps restoring text to the lead on Shell's rhetoric and proposed investments to mitigate climate change. This is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Peer-reviewed research shows that this is largely empty rhetoric and greenwashing,[8] which makes it particularly galling to see it uncritically repeated in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for coming to the talk page but please can we omit the personal attacks which are irrelevant to the conversation and also the rather hysterical tone. The text you are seeking to remove is factual, cited and important to provide context. It does not show Shell as pro environment per se. The legal case referred to was actually lost by Shell, I assume you didn't know that. It is a fact that Shell is investing in renewable energy, many billions. If you want to add a comment that this remains a small part of its business at present that would seem fair, but the proportion is growing rapidly when combined with disposal of legacy assets. The company intending to be zero emissions by 2050 or sooner is clearly highly notable for one of the largest oil companies. Valeriantrumpet (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The company's rhetoric does not in any way match up to its actual behavior.[9] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems like the sources I can find suggest that Shell is at least starting to move into renewables, although at a smaller scale and slower than there corporate-speak might suggest. It seems to be notable enough for mainstream news to talk about it[1][2], so I think it warrants talking about at least, perhaps also with accusations of greenwashing if that would also be appropriate. Anyway, the lead is meant to sum up the rest of the article, and Shell's work with renewables are mentioned in several different places in the article already.
With that said, I think that we should not rely too heavily on Shell's own statements for obvious reasons, so I do think that Valeriantrumpet's edit should be trimmed down enough so that we need not rely on references 13, 14, or 15 which just link to Shell's own website.JMM12345 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/18/business/shell-renewable-energy.html
  2. ^ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/shell-invest-565-million-renewable-energy-brazil-through-2025-2021-09-21/

Controversies section

I have broken up the former controversies section after it had been tagged by another editor: if other editors want to do more in this regard, please go ahead. Dormskirk (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Recently, I split Chevron and ExxonMobil's controversies into Criticism of Chevron and Criticism of ExxonMobil respectively. Would you think that Shell's controversies could be split into Criticism of Shell as well? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:CRITICISM says "separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article". I am not sure what the position is on separate articles but I assume it is the same. Dormskirk (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that it mostly depends...Exxon and Chevron had massive sections on criticism, and many other large organizations like Big Tech and religions have criticism articles. Given that the petrol industry is among the most widely criticized on the face of the planet, might be worth it to lump criticism of Shell into its own article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks like WP:Criticism suggests that "Public profile of Shell plc", is the correct title, and that both positive and negative views should be included. That said, I actually think there's some difference between 'conflict' and 'criticism'. It isn't really 'criticism' when Indigenous people (such as the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People) defend their land from foreign companies like Shell, (although such actions might provoke criticism from aid organisations or governments). So maybe an article titled "Environmental conflicts involving Shell plc" would be appropriate? Not sure.
However it's done, I think the main thing is an WP:OKFORK where the moved material must leave a WP:NPOV summary section of that material behind, (as I've suggested at talk for ExxonMobil and Chevron Corporation). In that case, we'd have to dedicate space in the lead proportional to the conflicts and controversies that were moved to the other article. That's clearly not the case for this article at present. The lead has only one sentence that's even slightly critical – (about GHGs). Shell has generated huge profits by creating some of the most polluted places on Earth at the expense of people who live in those places. A review of news and scholarly literature will show that this is worth mentioning in the first two paragraphs. Detailed treatment would probably require a separate article of some kind. Larataguera (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I gave a very cursory look at Dormskirk's edits to break up the controversy section. It looks like they moved most of it into the 'History' section? This could be fine, especially for short, discreet events. And then the long spin-off article would become "History of Shell plc". It might be a little harder to do it this way with long, ongoing events such as the environmental issues in the Niger Delta. But these will (or should) already have articles, so a brief summary section of their own might suffice. Larataguera (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Someone should actually explain why some of the factoids listed under "controversies" are controversial. 24.116.97.236 (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Barry1819 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cdobelta.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Climate change

All good scientists are skeptical looking for proof, not consensus. Galileo battled consensus. The entire article is biased towards an unproven but widely held belief, very similar to a faith. I bet this article is gone quickly. .04% co2 in atmosphere, less than .02% and plants start to die. Have a think. 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:48FC:99F3:B622:5CA4 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shell_plc/Archive_3&oldid=1234865813"