Post on 06-Jun-2020
transcript
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Royal Dutch Shell plcApril 16, 2018
Responsible Investment Annual BriefingSocially responsible investors
#makethefuture
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Definitions and cautionary note
This presentation contains data and analysis from Shell’s new Sky Scenario. Unlike Shell’s previously published Mountains and Oceans exploratory scenarios, the Sky Scenario is targeted through the assumption that society reaches the Paris Agreement’s goal of holding global average temperatures to well below 2°C. Unlike Shell’s Mountains and Oceans scenarios which unfolded in an open-ended way based upon plausible assumptions and quantifications, the Sky Scenario was specifically designed to reach the Paris Agreement’s goal in a technically possible manner. These scenarios are a part of an ongoing process used in Shell for over 40 years to challenge executives’ perspectives on the future business environment. They are designed to stretch management to consider even events that may only be remotely possible. Scenarios, therefore, are not intended to be predictions of likely future events or outcomes and investors should not rely on them when making an investment decision with regard to Royal Dutch Shell plc securities.
Additionally, it is important to note that Shell’s existing portfolio has been decades in development. While we believe our portfolio is resilient under a wide range of outlooks, including the IEA’s 450 scenario (World Energy Outlook 2016), it includes assets across a spectrum of energy intensities including some with above-average intensity. While we seek to enhance our operations’ average energy intensity through both the development of new projects and divestments, we have no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10-20 years. Although we have no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio, in November of 2017, we announced our ambition to reduce our net carbon footprint in accordance with society’s implementation of the Paris Agreement’s goal of holding global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Accordingly, assuming society aligns itself with the Paris Agreement’s goals, we aim to reduce our Net Carbon Footprint, which includes not only our direct and indirect carbon emissions, associated with producing the energy products which we sell, but also our customers’ emissions from their use of the energy products that we sell, by around 20% in 2035 and by around 50% in 2050.
Also, in this presentation we may refer to “Shell’s Net Carbon Footprint”, which includes Shell’s carbon emissions from the production of our energy products, our suppliers’ carbon emissions in supplying energy for that production and our customers’ carbon emissions associated with their use of the energy products we sell. Shell only controls its own emissions but, to support society in achieving the Paris Agreement goals, we aim to help and influence such suppliers and consumers to likewise lower their emissions. The use of the terminology “Shell’s Net Carbon Footprint” is for convenience only and not intended to suggest these emissions are those of Shell or its subsidiaries.
The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this presentation “Shell”, “Shell group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These terms are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular entity or entities. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refer to entities over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. Entities and unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint control are generally referred to as “joint ventures” and “joint operations”, respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control are referred to as “associates”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in an entity or unincorporated joint arrangement, after exclusion of all third-party interest.
This presentation contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as “aim”, “ambition’, ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’, ‘‘plan’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘risks’’, “schedule”, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘should’’, ‘‘target’’, ‘‘will’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous dividend payments. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell’s 20-Form for the year ended December 31, 2017 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward-looking statements contained in this presentation and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this presentation, 16 April 2018. Neither Royal Dutch Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation.
We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this presentation that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.
2
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Panels
Osagie OkunborManaging Director SPDC
Monika HausenblasEVP Safety and Environment
Rupert Thomas VP Environment
Harry BrekelmansDirector Projects and Technology
Angus Gillespie VP CO2 (transitioning)
John MacArthurVP CO2 (transitioning)
PANEL 1 PANEL 2
Nigeria Net Carbon Footprint
3
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018 4
Nigeria panel
2017 >70% reduction operational spills (volume) from 2016
Clean-up and UNEP progress
Collaboration and progress under MOU (Bodo)
HYPREP2 $10 million take-off grant, and project coordinator appointed
Reduction of oil spilled to environment from operational spills
Theft and sabotage continues (increase in 2017), long-term trend improving
0
50
100
150
200
0
5
10
15
20
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Thousand tonnes
SPDC JV1 spills
Volume of operational spillsVolume of sabotage spills
Operational spills >100kg Sabotage spills >100kg
Production and theft
0
200
400
600
800
0
20
40
60
80
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SPDC JV production (RHS)
Number
Thousand barrels per day Thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day
TheftCap and pile attachment to avoid repeated sabotage
1 SPDC JV = 30% Shell, 55% NNPC, 10% Total, 5% Agip; all data on 100% basis unless otherwise stated
2 Hydrocarbon Pollution Restoration Project – this body was established under the Nigerian Ministry of Environment, aimed at the sustainable clean-up of Ogoniland
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Net Carbon Footprint panel
1 Net Carbon Footprint measured on an aggregate “well to wheel” or “well to wire” basis, from production through to consumption, on grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule of energy products consumed; chemicals + lubricants products are excluded. Carbon
Footprint of the energy system is modelled using Shell methodology aggregating lifecycle emissions of energy products on a fossil-equivalence basis. The methodology will be further reviewed and validated in collaboration with external experts
2 Potential society trajectory includes analysis from Shell scenarios estimate of Net Zero Emissions by 2070 and IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2017; Potential illustrative Shell trajectory
3 Scope 1,2,3 emissions limited to activities associated with bringing energy products to the market, Scope 3 emissions only includes Category 11: Use of sold products
WtW gCO2e/MJ1
Ambition to reduce Net Carbon Footprint1
of our energy products by around 20% by 2035
Covers full range of emissions from energy products (Scope 1, 2 and 33)
Additionally, includes emissions produced by customers when they use the energy products we sell
Seeks to drive strategy over time in step with society
5-year reviews
Reductions estimated based on our expectation of societal trajectory to meet Paris goals
Ambition for Net Carbon Footprint1
Society trajectory2 Shell trajectory2
Shell “business as usual”
~20% reduction by 2035
In line with society by 2050
Ambitions: Reduce Net Carbon
Footprint1 of our energy products by ~20% by 2035
Be in line with society Net Carbon Footprint by 2050
5
Emissions from energy products included
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Royal Dutch Shell plcApril 16, 2018
Responsible Investment Annual BriefingSocially responsible investors
#makethefuture
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Definitions and cautionary note
This presentation contains data and analysis from Shell’s new Sky Scenario. Unlike Shell’s previously published Mountains and Oceans exploratory scenarios, the Sky Scenario is targeted through the assumption that society reaches the Paris Agreement’s goal of holding global average temperatures to well below 2°C. Unlike Shell’s Mountains and Oceans scenarios which unfolded in an open-ended way based upon plausible assumptions and quantifications, the Sky Scenario was specifically designed to reach the Paris Agreement’s goal in a technically possible manner. These scenarios are a part of an ongoing process used in Shell for over 40 years to challenge executives’ perspectives on the future business environment. They are designed to stretch management to consider even events that may only be remotely possible. Scenarios, therefore, are not intended to be predictions of likely future events or outcomes and investors should not rely on them when making an investment decision with regard to Royal Dutch Shell plc securities.
Additionally, it is important to note that Shell’s existing portfolio has been decades in development. While we believe our portfolio is resilient under a wide range of outlooks, including the IEA’s 450 scenario (World Energy Outlook 2016), it includes assets across a spectrum of energy intensities including some with above-average intensity. While we seek to enhance our operations’ average energy intensity through both the development of new projects and divestments, we have no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10-20 years. Although we have no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio, in November of 2017, we announced our ambition to reduce our net carbon footprint in accordance with society’s implementation of the Paris Agreement’s goal of holding global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Accordingly, assuming society aligns itself with the Paris Agreement’s goals, we aim to reduce our Net Carbon Footprint, which includes not only our direct and indirect carbon emissions, associated with producing the energy products which we sell, but also our customers’ emissions from their use of the energy products that we sell, by around 20% in 2035 and by around 50% in 2050.
Also, in this presentation we may refer to “Shell’s Net Carbon Footprint”, which includes Shell’s carbon emissions from the production of our energy products, our suppliers’ carbon emissions in supplying energy for that production and our customers’ carbon emissions associated with their use of the energy products we sell. Shell only controls its own emissions but, to support society in achieving the Paris Agreement goals, we aim to help and influence such suppliers and consumers to likewise lower their emissions. The use of the terminology “Shell’s Net Carbon Footprint” is for convenience only and not intended to suggest these emissions are those of Shell or its subsidiaries.
The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this presentation “Shell”, “Shell group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These terms are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular entity or entities. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refer to entities over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. Entities and unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint control are generally referred to as “joint ventures” and “joint operations”, respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control are referred to as “associates”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in an entity or unincorporated joint arrangement, after exclusion of all third-party interest.
This presentation contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as “aim”, “ambition’, ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’, ‘‘plan’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘risks’’, “schedule”, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘should’’, ‘‘target’’, ‘‘will’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous dividend payments. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell’s 20-Form for the year ended December 31, 2017 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward-looking statements contained in this presentation and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this presentation, 16 April 2018. Neither Royal Dutch Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation.
We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this presentation that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.
8
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Donny ChingLegal DirectorRoyal Dutch Shell
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Year Event1
1998 Malabu awarded licence for OPL 245
2001 Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep (“SNUD”) farms in
2001 Federal Government of Nigeria (“FGN”) revokes the Malabu Licence
2002 SNUD bids for and is awarded OPL 245 by FGN and later signs a PSC with Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (“NNPC”)
2002 Various litigations follow
2006 FGN settles litigation with Malabu and reallocates licence to MalabuMalabu and SNUD now have competing legal rights to the Block
2007 Shell (SNUD) commences Bilateral Investment Treaty arbitration against the FGN for wrongful expropriation
2008 FGN seeks resolution, negotiations commence
2010 Negotiations now include ENI Settlement with FGN negotiated with Attorney General of FGN, Minister of Petroleum Resources, Minister of Finance and senior NNPC officials
2011Settlement achieved. FGN receives $1.3 bln: Shell releases signature bonus in return for the licence and pays $110.04 mln to ENI (NAE); ENI (NAE) pays FGN $1,092.04 mln for rights to the block; Malabu relinquished all claims on OPL 245 in exchange for payment from FGN of $1,092.04 mln
2017 Court of Milan decided that Shell and its four former employees should be remanded for trial
2018 Court of Milan decided that first hearing is postponed to 14 May
OPL 245
Fact recap
1 A full chronology of events is available in the additional information slides
10
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
OPL 245
No case to answer
Shell media statement:“Based on our review of the Prosecutor of Milan's file and all of the information and facts available to us, we do not believe that there is a basis to convict Shell or any of its former employees. If the evidence ultimately proves that improper payments were made by Malabu or others to then current government officials in exchange for improper conduct relating to the 2011 settlement of the long standing legal disputes, it is Shell’s position that none of those payments were made with its knowledge, authorisation or on its behalf.
“We believe the trial judges in Italy will conclude that there is no case against Shell or its former employees.
“Shell attaches the greatest importance to business integrity. It’s one of our core values and is a central tenet of the Business Principles that govern the way we do business. Shell has clear rules on anti-bribery and corruption and these are included in our Code of Conduct for all staff. There is no place for bribery or corruption in our company.”
11
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
OML 42
Criminal complaint
Shell media statement:“Based on what we know now from an internal investigation, we suspect a crime may have been committed by our former employee, Peter Robinson, against Shell in relation to the sale process for Oil Mining Lease (OML) 42 in Nigeria in 2011. We have filed a criminal complaint with the Dutch authorities and are considering other steps we could take.
“We were stunned and disappointed when we learned about this issue. Our Code of Conduct, our Business Principles and our core values of honesty, integrity and respect govern the way we do business. We work tirelessly to uphold these principles and we expect high standards of behaviour from everyone who works for Shell. Where those standards are breached we are committed to taking the appropriate action, and to learning lessons.
“Based on our current understanding, we believe OML 42 and OPL 245 are unrelated. On OPL 245, we continue to believe, from our review of the Prosecutor of Milan's file and all of the information and facts currently available to us, there is no case to convict Shell or its former employees.”
12
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Ben van BeurdenChief Executive OfficerRoyal Dutch Shell
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Strategic ambition
Thrive in the energy transition
World-class investment case
Strong license
to operate
2017
Year of transformation
Strong financial delivery and strengthened financial framework
Growth momentum
Resilient and relevant portfolio positioned long term
Reduce the Net Carbon Footprint of our energy products in line with society
14
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
ESG programme Key events
Responsible Investment Annual Briefing (since 2006)
2018: Board engagement day
Chairman roadshows
Remuneration Committee roadshows
Engagements with IIGCC1 (CA100+2)
1 Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, 2 Climate Action 100+ initiative
www.shell.com/esg
15
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Leading in transparency
RDS reporting2017
Announcement of Net Carbon Footprint ambition (November 2017)
2017 CDP Climate change score: “B”
Inclusion in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index
2018 progress
Disclosures aligned to Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
“Shell Energy Transition report” published
Annual report: additional disclosures on climate change risk and strategy
“Sky – meeting the goals of the Paris agreement” scenario published
16
Strategic ambition –Thrive in the energy transition
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Hans WijersChair of the CSRCRoyal Dutch Shell
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Corporate and Social Responsibility Committee
1 Hans Wijers stands down as a Director of the Company at the close of business of the 2018 Annual General Meeting to be held on May 22, 2018
2 On March 14, 2018, the Board appointed Sir Nigel Sheinwald as Chair of the Corporate and Social Responsibility Committee with effect from May 23, 2018
3 On March 14, 2018, the Board appointed Linda G. Stuntz as member of the Corporate and Social Responsibility Committee with effect from May 23, 2018. She will stand down as a member of the Audit Committee on May 22, 2018
Hans Wijers1
(Chair)
Linda G. Stuntz3
Sir Nigel Sheinwald2
Catherine J. Hughes
18
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Areas of focus
CSRC topics2017 2018
Approach to the energy transition
Methane
Greenhouse gas (GHG) metrics in remuneration
Nigeria
Groningen
Security
Net Carbon Footprint
Nature based solutions
Ethics and compliance
Groningen
Nigeria
Pernis refinery site visit, The Netherlands Afam VI power plant, Nigeria
19
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Rewarding performance in line with delivery of strategy
GHG metrics in remuneration
The GHG metrics in the 2018 scorecard have evolved and coverage has increased to close to 90% of the Scope 1 and 2 operated emissions, compared to 60% in 2017
CEO personal performance agreement includes strategy and progress in new energies
Scorecard aligned for Directors and staff
Annual bonus scorecard design
Strategy drives change
Remuneration follows and supports strategy
Cash flow from operating activities Operational excellence Sustainable development
2017 2018
5% Process safety
5% Personal safety
10% GHG management
10% Environment
10% Safety
Scope expanded2:
Upstream and Integrated Gas GHG intensity in million tonnes CO2e (4%)
Refining GHG intensity measured in tonnes CO2e per UEDC1 (3%)
Chemicals GHG intensity measured in tonnes CO2e per tonne of chemicals production (3%)
5% Process safety
5% Personal safety
10% GHG management
20
1 Solomon’s Utilised Equivalent Distillation Capacity 2 Updated 24 October 2018: % reflect the weighting for 2017, the definition is for 2018. The weighting and full 2018 scorecard architecture will become available in the 2018 Annual Report
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
How the CSRC looks at climate change
Fully support the Paris agreement
“We believe that the need to reduce GHG emissions, which are largely caused by burning fossil fuels, will transform the energy system in this century.” (RDS Annual Report 2017)
Management of risks and opportunities
Managed in accordance with other significant risks through Board and Executive Committee
Supported by standards, policies and controls
Board and Board subcommittee involvement
Board strategy sessions throughout 2017 on changing global energy market, energy transitionand climate change
CSRC
Remuneration Committee
Audit committee
2018 priorities: Energy transition New energies
business strategy implementation
21
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Ben van BeurdenChief Executive OfficerRoyal Dutch Shell
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
HSSE performance Injuries – TRCF/million working hours
Goal Zero on safety
Million tonnes CO2e
Upstream flaring
Volume in thousand tonnes
Operational spills
Number of incidents
Process safety
HSSE priority Performance and
transparency
million working hours Number of spills
0
200
400
600
800
0
2
4
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 20170
250
500
0
5
10
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
0
5
10
15
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 20170
200
400
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Working hoursTRCF Volume Number
Tier 1 incidents Tier 2 incidents
23
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Embedding a
Culture of care Golden rules: comply, intervene and respect Protecting our reputation and driving competitive advantage
Social performance
Sustain societal license to operate
HR organisational effectiveness
Respect for people
Contracting and Procurement
Explicit recognition of care in how we do business
Diversity andinclusion
A diverse and inclusive work environment
Human performance and careCaring for individuals and their work environment
Care for people in projects
Programmatic approach to maximise worker welfare and performance in projects
Physical environment
Camp and office design supporting care
Safety leadershipBehavioural androad safetyIntentional and relentless focus on personal and process safety across Shell
Care
24
Better business outcomes
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Performance
Nigeria Operational spill volume reduction >70%
Increased number of sabotage-related spills
Commenced Bodo spill clean-up under Bodo Mediation Initiative
The SPDC JV Afam VI power plant supplied ~15% of the nation’s grid-connected electricity in 2017
Oil theft and sabotageimpacts onshore operations
Livewire alternative livelihoods
Workers at the Afam VI Power Plant
25
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Thrive in the energy transition
Societal challenge
Sources: Population – UN World Population projections; Energy consumption: 2015 – IEA World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2017; 2070 outlook – Shell scenarios analysis from A better life with a healthy planet
CO2 emissions: 2015 – IEA WEO 2017; 2040 – IEA WEO 2017 Current policies scenario; 2070 – Shell scenarios analysis from A better life with a healthy planet
Challenge for more and cleaner energy
Reduction required in the carbon intensity of every unit of energy consumed
2015 2070
>10 billion7 billion
1000 Exajoules570 Exajoules
Net ZeroEmissions
32 gt CO2e CO2
43 gt CO2e current policies
2 0 4 0
Increasing population
Increasing energy demand
Need to reduce CO2 emissions
26
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Sky – Meeting the goals of the Paris agreement
New scenario launched March 2018
EJ/year
World primary energy by source
GT CO2 /year
World total CO2 emissions from energy
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2015 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070Oil BiofuelsNatural Gas BiomassCoal NuclearSolar WindOther Renewables
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2015 2030 2045 2060 2075 20902015 2030 2045 2060 2075 2090
1 Nationally Determined Contributions; 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Grounded in current energy system
NDC1 process ratchets aggressively to 2030
Progressively becomes goal-driven (‘normative’) to meet Paris aims
Unprecedented and sustained collaboration required
Deep electrification, global power generation grows by factor of five
Aggressive efficiency improvement
Liquid and gaseous fuels remain in hard-to-electrify sectors
Renewables largest sources of energy from 2050s
CO2 emissions peak in 2020s
Net-zero emissions by 2070
Sky scenario impact estimated at around 1.75°C
Additional potential from greater reforestation
Collaboration with MIT2
Assessed by MIT2 as limiting temperature increase to 1.75 °C
www.shell.com/scenarios
27
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Thrive in the energy transition
Driving to resilience and ambition
Demonstrating Shell’s approach across multiple time horizons
TIME HORIZON
SHORT TERMGHG
management
Focussed on operational action
Included in annual bonus scorecard
MEDIUM TERMStrategic positioning and
portfolio resilience
Disclosures aligned to TCFD recommendations
Demonstrate financial resilience of portfolio to energy transition and climate change actions
LONG TERMNet Carbon Footprint
methodology
Covers full range of emissions from our energy products through to consumption
1-3 YEARS 5-10 YEARS >10 YEARS
5% Process safety
5% Personal safety
10% GHG management
Sustainable
development
28
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018 29
Resilience
Financial framework
1 Significant variations in oil and/or gas prices will potentially impact certain operating costs, or result in foreign exchange movements, the effect of which are not reflected in this price sensitivity; 2 Assuming oil price fell from around $65 per barrel today to $40 per barrel money of the day; 3 Assuming oil price rose from around $65 per barrel today to $100 per barrel money of the day
$ billion
CFFO excluding working capital Capital investment flexibility
Growing free cashflow
Capital discipline and flexibility
Strong balance sheet
Oil price $40-$100 per barrel range likely to 2030
$10 per barrel movement in Brent prices, around $6 billion cash flow impact indicative estimate1
At $40/bbl impact of -$15 billion on CFFO2
At $100/bbl impact of +$21 billion on CFFO3
$10 per tonne CO2 movement in global CO2 price, around $1bn billion pre-tax impact on cash flow
Applying more resiliency criteria to capital allocation
Lower break-even prices
Shorter payback periods
Improving project delivery
Average Brent oil price ($/bbl)
0
10
20
30
40
2014 2015 2016 2017
$99 $52 $44 $54
$ billion (per annum) 2018 – 2020
Oil products 4-5
Conventional oil + gas 4-5
Integrated gas 4-5
Deep water 5-6
Chemicals 3-4
Shales 2-3
New energies 1-2
Total 25-30
$#
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018 30
Resilience
Portfolio
1 The forward-looking breakeven price for pre-FID projects is calculated based on all forward-looking costs associated with pre-FID projects in our development portfolio. Accordingly, this typically excludes exploration & appraisal costs, lease bonuses,
exploration seismic and exploration team overhead costs. The forward-looking breakeven price for pre-FID projects is calculated based on our estimate of resources volumes that are currently classified as 2C under the Society of Petroleum Engineers’ Resource
Classification System. As these pre-FID projects are expected to be multidecade producing projects, the less than $30 per barrel projection will not be reflected either in earnings or cash flow in the next five years
Diverse business segments Geographic diversity Active portfolio management
Resilience from diverse and actively managed portfolio
Assessed risk of stranded assets as low
Marketing earnings
Chemicals earnings
Americas Asia EU + Africa
Operations across energy system
Strength of integrated model
Global business in more than 70 countries
In 2017, 19 countries accounted for 80% of CFFO
Focus on cost reduction
Improving CO2 performance
DEEP WATER
Projects waiting FID: average break-even <$30
SHALES
Permian direct field expenses -33% in 2017
INTEGRATEDGAS
Since BG, underlying operating expenses -11%
CHEMICALS
Pennsylvania ethylene cracker expected top quartile CO2 intensity
OIL PRODUCTS
INTEGRATEDGAS
CHEMICALS
SHALESNEW ENERGIES
Cash engines
Growth priorities
Emergingopportunities
DEEP WATER
CONVENTIONALOIL + GAS
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018 31
Thrive in the energy transition
Ambition – Net Carbon Footprint
1 Net Carbon Footprint measured on an aggregate “well to wheel” or “well to wire” basis, from production through to consumption, on grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule of energy products consumed; chemicals + lubricants products are excluded. Carbon
Footprint of the energy system is modelled using Shell methodology aggregating lifecycle emissions of energy products on a fossil-equivalence basis. The methodology will be further reviewed and validated in collaboration with external experts
2 Potential society trajectory includes analysis from Shell scenarios estimate of Net Zero Emissions by 2070 and IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2017; Potential illustrative Shell trajectory
3 Scope 1,2,3 emissions limited to activities associated with bringing energy products to the market, Scope 3 emissions only includes Category 11: Use of sold products
WtW gCO2e/MJ1
Ambition to reduce Net
Carbon Footprint1 of our
energy products by around
20% by 2035
Covers full range of emissions from
energy products (Scope 1, 2 and 33)
Additionally, includes emissions
produced by customers when they use
the energy products we sell
Drive strategy over time in step with
society
5-year reviews
Reductions estimated based on our
expectation of societal trajectory to
meet Paris goals
Ambition for Net Carbon Footprint1
Ambitions: Reduce Net Carbon
Footprint1 of our energy products by ~20% by 2035
Be in line with society Net Carbon Footprint by 2050
Society trajectory2 Shell trajectory2
Shell “business as usual”
In line with society by 2050
~20% reduction by 2035
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018 32
Scope of our Net Carbon Footprint
1 The ‘lifecycle’ calculation tracks the energy molecules end-to-end but does not include emissions associated with construction or decommissioning of facilities
2 Scope 1,2,3 emissions limited to activities associated with bringing energy products to the market, Scope 3 emissions only includes Category 11: Use of sold products
3 CCS: Carbon Capture and Storage, NBS: Nature based solutions
Emissions from energy products included within the Net Carbon Footprint framework
Full lifecycle1 of ourenergy products, including consumption
Sales
Sales
Sales
ProcessingLiquefactionGas-to-liquid
Refining
Renewable Energy
Oil and gas Extraction
Oil
Natural gas
LNG
GTL
Third-party crude
Third-partyproducts
Third-partyproducts Net of CO2
sinks such as CCS, NBS3
Key2
Emissions from bringing own products to the market (Scope 1,2)Emissions from bringing third-party products to the market (Scope 1,2)
Emissions from use of own products (Scope 3)Emissions from use of third-party products (Scope 3)Contributions included in bringing products to market (Scope 1,2)
Biofuels and power
Third-partygas Third-party
products
Processing
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Our Net Carbon Footprint ambitionmoves in line with society
Shell cannot predict society and government future actions
Therefore: aligned to society’s progress
In step with society’s drive to align with Paris goals
Reassess progress every five years linked to NDC1 process
Shell’s approach goes further than shareholder resolution requests
We include emissions from:
(The production of) Shell’s energy products
Energy products from third parties, processed in our facilities
Energy products from third parties, sold by us, and
The use of these energy products
Potential business activities identified, such as growing new energies business
Shareholder resolution –response
1 Nationally Determined Contributions
Shell’s approach is wide-ranging and progressive
33
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Thrive in the energy transition
Case studies
Pilot facility operating in Bangalore
Meets GHG reduction mandates, to be considered advanced biofuels
Can use a broad spectrum of forestry, agricultural and sorted municipal waste as feedstock
Biofuels R&D: IH2® Adapting our retail network
Multiple opportunities to offer low-carbon fuels
‘Shell Recharge’ electric vehicle (EV) charging in UK and The Netherlands
Partnered with IONITY to install EV charging on major routes across 10 countries in Europe
Hydrogen in UK, Germany and California, USA
34
Hydrogen network development – UK, Germany and USA
500 ultra-fast charge posts with IONITY in next 2 years – Europe
20+ ‘recharge’ locations – UK & Netherlands
Integrated charging solutionsIH2® demonstration facility, India
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Questions and Answers
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Ben van BeurdenChief Executive Officer
Hans WijersChair of the CSRC
Harry BrekelmansProjects and Technology Director
Donny ChingLegal Director
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Maarten WetselaarIntegrated Gas and New Energies DirectorRoyal Dutch Shell
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Policy actions for clean energy
Global
G20 endorses role of gas in energy transition
IEA recognises CO2 emissions reductions from coal-to-gas switching and renewables (China, US and UK)
National
China favours gas and renewables and reforms gas market
South Korea prioritises renewables and gas
Germany supports public-private partnerships for Hydrogen refuelling network
Regional
EU policies supporting coal phase out: >10 countries announce ambitions
EU agreed to strengthen Emissions Trading Scheme
EU power market reforms: accommodate renewables and distributed energy
Local
Policymakers targeting air quality
Beijing meets ambitious 2017 air quality targets
Berlin closes local coal-fired power plants to improve air quality
Widespread policy support for Integrated Gas and new energies
37
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Integrated Gas Cash engine
As of Q4 2017; capital employed includes new energies; average capital investment per annum in period 2018-20; Organic FCF by 2020: 2016 RT $60 per barrel
World leader Growing markets Differentiated
portfolio $8-10 billion organic
FCF by 2020
Creating & securing demand Optimisation Managing supply
LNG Gas and power Gas-to-liquids premium products
Marketing and trading Shipping and transport Regasification
Gas and liquids production Liquefaction Gas-to-liquids
Capital employed: $87.5 billion
Production: 0.9 mboe/d
Liquefaction volume: 33 mtpa
LNG sales volumes: 66 mtpa
Capital investment: $4-5 billion
38
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Reducing methane emissionsProduct stewardship of gas
Methane guiding principles Oil and Gas Climate Initiative
Focus on entire gas value chain –from production to final consumer
39
Shell led development of principles; 8 companies initially signed and 3 more since
Collaborated with industry, academics, NGOs and multilateral organisations
Prioritise monitoring, measuring, reporting and reducing emissions
Shell now spearheading key actions to advancethe principles
Commitment to work towards near zero methane emissions – target to be announced end 2018
Improve understanding of global methane emissions sources
Financial support methane technology commercialisation
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Focus areas: Biofuels Hydrogen Electric mobility
Work in partnerships and consortia Target downstream returns high teens %
New Energies New Fuels
Focus areas: Trading, marketing and customer access Low-carbon generation and storage
Investment in customer access Selective asset ownership Target equity returns of 8-12%
Power
Selective and opportunity driven investment
Capital investment $1-2 billion per annum average
NoordzeeWind, The NetherlandsWuppertal, Germany
40
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Adjacencies to existing businesses
Value chain integrator
Demand-driven development
Power value chain
CUSTOMERS OPTIMISATION SUPPLY AND GENERATION
Secure demand in key markets
Commercial, industrial, and residential
Optimise intermittent demand and supply
Trading opportunities
Wind, solar, and selected gas and storage assets
Selective capacity ownership to create portfolio flexibility
Leverage portfolio flexibility and arbitrage opportunities
Multiple parties are active on the demand side
Not all products are supplied by Shell; some are purchased from third parties
41
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Adjacencies to existing businesses
Value chain integrator
Demand-driven development
Power value chain
CUSTOMERS OPTIMISATION SUPPLY ANDGENERATION
Leverage portfolio flexibility and arbitrage opportunities
Multiple parties are active on the demand side
Not all products are supplied by Shell; some are purchased from third parties
New Motion
First Utility
MP2 Energy LLC
Shell Energy North America
Shell Energy Europe
Shell Energy Australia
Carbon credit trading
Silicon ranch
US onshore wind portfolio
NoordzeeWind offshore
The Netherlands
Borssele 3 and 4 offshore wind1
Solar and storage at Shell sites11 Projects shown are pre-FID
42
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Delivering a profitable energy access business
1 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Technology company
Universal smart metering platform
Serving mini grid companies and other utilities
Focused in Africa and Asia
Mini-grid company
Hybrid solar PV and biomass gasification solution
Reliable electricity on a pay-as-you-go basis
Operations in India and Tanzania
Off-grid modular solar solutions for homes and businesses
Offers consumer financing
Operations in Uganda and Kenya
Steamaco Husk Power Systems SolarNow
Commercial response to UN SDG1 7: Affordable and clean energy
43
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Maarten WetselaarIntegrated Gas and New Energies DirectorRoyal Dutch Shell
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Questions and Answers
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Maarten WetselaarIntegrated Gas and New Energies Director
Mark GainsboroughEVP New Energies
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Additional information
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
2017 2018/19
NAMA 50:50 Joint Venture with Shell and ExxonMobil
August5 years since Huizingeearthquake (force 3.6)
AprilProduction cut by 10% to 21.6bcm
MarchNAM at a distance
NovemberRaad van State announces judgment appeals against Ministry of Economic Affairs’ amended decision on gas extraction Groningen
NovemberNAM submits updated Hazard and Risk Assessment to SodM1
JanuaryEarthquake Zeerijp with a force of 3.4 on the scale of Richter
JanuarySodM advice to minister on gasproduction level. Gasproduction locations Loppersum shut down
MarchDamage claims public desk opened (‘NAM at a distance’)
47
JanuaryMinister Wiebes announces new damage protocol
MarchMinistry of Economic Affairs announces “Groningen to zero” by 2030
Source: www.nam.nl, 1 State Supervision of the Mines
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018 48
Nigeria environmental performance
1 SPDC JV = 30% Shell, 55% NNPC, 10% Total, 5% Agip; all data on 100% basis unless otherwise stated
Clean-up & UNEP progress
Commenced Bodo spill clean-up under Bodo Mediation Initiative
HYPREP2 $10 million take-off grant, and project coordinator appointed
Oil spill prevention & remediation
Theft protection mechanisms improved
Daily overflights + surveillance continue
IUCN collaboration on remediation standards and practices
Remediation and certification efforts ongoing (92 sites out of 251 remediated in 2017)
Social performance initiatives to address underlying cause (Livewire training programmes)
Theft and sabotage continues (25% increase in numbers in 2017 following Forcados terminal outage in 2016), long-term trend improving
2017 >70% reduction operational spills (volume) from 2016
www.shell.com.ng/briefingnotes
2 Hydrocarbon Pollution Restoration Project – this body was established under the Nigerian Ministry of Environment, aimed at the sustainable clean-up of Ogoniland
0
50
100
150
200
0
5
10
15
20
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Thousand tonnes
SPDC JV1 spills
Volume of operational spillsVolume of sabotage spills
Operational spills >100kgSabotage spills >100kg
Production and theft
0
200
400
600
800
0
20
40
60
80
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Production (SPDC JV) (RHS)
Thousand barrels per day Thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day
Theft
Number
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Case study: Brent decommissioning
Contractor management
1 In today’s money
Brent decommissioning
Platforms and infrastructure retirement
~1,000 people
>97% planned to be recycled
Brent-Delta platform lift
Single lift
Coordination with >100 companies
Extensive contractor collaboration
Brent createdjobs and contributed >£20 billion in tax revenue1
Brent, United Kingdom
49
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Human rights Integrated approach
Informed by Universal Declaration of Human Rights, core conventions of International LabourOrganization and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
Example: Worker Welfare – Singapore
Example: Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPSHR) – Tunisia
50
Malampaya, Philipines
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Directors’ remuneration policy
Long t
erm
Long Term Incentive Plan(LTIP)
Annual bonus
Fixed remuneration
Shareholding & holding periods
Malus + clawback
Short
ter
m
Short-term operational delivery targets
50% bonus in shares, subject to 3-year holding period which remains in force post-leaving
Shareholding requirement: CEO: 7 x base salary; CFO: 4 x base salary
Malus and clawback provision apply to bonus and LTIP
Benchmarked against 4 oil majors and 15 European companies
World-class investment financial metrics
3-year performance + 3-year holding period which remains in force post-leaving
30% CFFO
20% Sustainable development
10% Safety10% GHG
50% Operational excellence
12.5% Project delivery12.5% Production12.5% LNG sales12.5% DS availability
25% TSR
25% ROACE
25% FCF
25% CFFO
50% cash
50% shares
51
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Health, Safety, Security & Environment
Process safety is central in achieving Shell’s goal of zero harm to people and the environment
Managed by combining asset integrity principles with a risk management approach, supported by visible safety leadership
52
Asset integrity principles
Risk management approach
Process safety performance
Threats Consequences
CONTROLS, BARRIERS RECOVERY MEASURES
TOPEVENT
Design Integrity
TechnicalIntegrity
OperatingIntegrity
IntegrityLeadership
GOALZERO
NOHARM
NOLEAKS
NO HARMTO PEOPLE
NO LEAKSFROM OUROPERATIONS
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Shareholder resolution –response
Follow This resolution Shell response
Set and publish targets that are aligned with the goal of the
Paris Climate Agreement to limit global warming to well
below 2°C. They need to include long-term (2050) and
intermediate objectives, to be quantitative, and to be
reviewed regularly
Already announced Net Carbon Footprint1 ambition (November 2017)
Around 50% reduction of Net Carbon Footprint of our energy products by 2050, around
20% by 2035 (gCO2e/MJ)
In step with society’s drive to align with the Paris goals
Reassess every five-years aligned to NDC process
Explicit target would need to predict society & government future actions
Gives the flexibility to continue to thrive in whatever world society moves towards;
recognizes need for action by all society
The company base these targets on tangible metrics such as
greenhouse gas intensity metrics (GHG emissions per unit of
energy produced) or to use other metrics that the company
finds suitable to align its targets with a well-below-2°C
pathway
GHG metrics in executive bonus scorecard (since 2017)
Reporting aligned to TCFD recommendations
Ambition in step with society’s drive to align with the Paris goals
These targets need to cover the GHG emissions of Shell’s
operations and the use of its energy products (*),(*) Scope 1,
Scope 2, and category 11 of Scope 3 (emissions from use of
Shell’s refinery fuel and natural gas products, and sold CO2
transfers), excluding emissions from use and disposal of non-
fuel products
Shell’s Net Carbon Footprint Ambition well beyond scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions of our
energy products
Includes emissions produced by customers when they use the energy products we sell
Includes emissions from elements of energy products life-cycle not owned by Shell, such as:
Oil and gas processed - but not produced - by Shell
Oil products and electricity marketed by Shell not processed or generated at a
Shell facility
1 Net Carbon Footprint measured on an aggregate “well to wheel” or “well to wire” basis, from production through to consumption, on grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule of energy products consumed; chemicals + lubricants products are excluded. Carbon
Footprint of the energy system is modelled using Shell methodology aggregating lifecycle emissions of energy products on a fossil-equivalence basis. The methodology will be further reviewed and validated in collaboration with external experts.
The Board recommends voting against the Follow This resolution
53
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
OPL 245
Chronology of events (1)
Phase 1
1998 – Malabu awarded licence for OPL 245
March 2001 – Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep (“SNUD”) farms in
Representations and warranties were provided on ownership of Malabu
Federal Government Nigeria (“FGN”) consented
Phase 2
July 2001 – FGN revokes the Malabu Licence
May 2002:
SNUD bids for and is awarded OPL 245 by FGN and later signs a PSC with Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (“NNPC”)
Signature bonus ($209 million) is placed in escrow pending outstanding disputes with Malabu
SNUD conducts exploration and appraisal work programme
54
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
OPL 245
Chronology of events (2)
Phase 2 (continued)
Various litigations follow:
May 2002 – SNUD commenced International Chamber of Commerce arbitration proceedings against Malabu
August 2002 – Malabu commenced proceedings against FGN, Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company (“SNEPCO”), SNUD and other Shell parties in New York federal court
May 2003 – (following a petition by Malabu), the Nigerian House of Representatives issued a report concluding: (i) OPL 245 was legally awarded to Malabu, (ii) the revocation of Malabu’s licenceshould be set aside, (iii) SNUD should pay $550 million compensation to Malabu. SNUD appeals
September 2003 – Malabu commenced proceedings in Nigeria against FGN, NNPC and SNUD for a declaration that the award of OPL 245 to Malabu was valid, a declaration that the award to SNUD was invalid, and damages of $100 million
55
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
OPL 245
Chronology of events (3)
Phase 3
December 2006 – FGN settles litigation with Malabu and reallocates the licence to Malabu
Malabu and SNUD now have competing legal rights to the Block
April 2007 – SNUD commences Bilateral Investment Treaty arbitration against the FGN for wrongful expropriation
2008 – FGN seeks resolution, negotiations commence
56
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
OPL 245
Chronology of events (4)
Phase 4
2010 – negotiations now include ENI
Settlement with FGN – negotiations are conducted with Attorney General of FGN, the Minister of Petroleum Resources, the Minister of Finance and senior NNPC officials
April 2011 – settlement is achieved. FGN receives $1.3bln:
Signature bonus is released by SNUD to FGN from 2003 escrow funds in return for the licence
SNEPCO pays $110.40 million to ENI (Nigerian Agip Exploration (“NAE”)) ($25.40 million interest on the escrow, plus $85 million)
NAE pays $1,092.04 million to FGN for settling all outstanding claims on the Block
FGN agrees to indemnify SNEPCO and NAE from any other claims on the Block
SNEPCO and NAE hold the licence 50/50. NAE is operator
57
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
OPL 245
Agreements of April 2011
Heads of Agreement between NAE and SNUD and SNEPCO: allocation of the payments due to FGN
Block 245 Resolution Agreement: FGN, NNPC, SNUD, SNEPCO and NAE
Payments to FGN and award of the licence
FGN indemnifies SNEPCO and NAE against competing claims
Key fiscal terms of future PSC
Block 245 Resolution Agreement: FGN and Malabu. Payment to Malabu; settlement of claims
Block 245 Resolution Agreement: FGN and SNUD. Settlement of claims
Settlement submission to Court of Appeal, Abuja: SNUD, SNEPCO, Malabu and Nigerian House of Representatives (“NHR”). Withdrawing SNUD and SNEPCO appeals against a 2003 NHR report in favour of Malabu
58
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
OPL 245
Shell review Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, an international law firm, was retained by the Shell Group
Debevoise conducted and led an investigation which included staff from the law firm and Shell’s Business Integrity Department
Periodic updates to senior management, Audit Committee and RDS Board
Final report to RDS Board in July 2016
Findings shared with authorities during 2016
59
Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018