Shell (SHEL) Risk Analysis

Antitrust and competition laws apply to Shell and its joint arrangements and associates in the vast majority of countries where we do business. Shell and its joint arrangements and associates have been fined for violations of antitrust and competition laws in the past. This includes a number of fines by the European Commission Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP). Because of DG COMP’s fining guidelines, any future conviction of Shell or any of its joint arrangements or associates for violation of EU competition law could potentially result in significantly larger fines and have a material adverse effect on us. Violation of antitrust laws is a criminal offence in many countries, and individuals can be imprisoned or fined. In certain circumstances, directors may receive director disqualification orders. It is also now common for persons or corporations allegedly injured by antitrust violations to sue for damages. Any violation of these laws can harm our reputation and could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition.

Societal demand for urgent action has increased, especially since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report of 2018 on 1.5°C effectively made the aspirational goal of the Paris Agreement to limit the rise in global average temperature this century to 1.5 degrees Celsius the default target. This increasing focus on climate change and drive for an energy transition have created a risk environment that is changing rapidly, resulting in a wide range of stakeholder actions at global, local and business levels. The potential impact and likelihood of the associated exposure for Shell could vary across different time horizons, depending on the specific components of the risk. We expect that a growing share of our GHG emissions will be subject to regulation, resulting in increased compliance costs and operational restrictions. Regulators may seek to limit certain oil and gas projects or make it more difficult to obtain required permits. Additionally, climate activists are challenging the grant of new and existing regulatory permits. We expect that these challenges are likely to continue and could delay or prohibit operations in certain cases. Achieving our target of becoming net zero on all emissions from our operations could result in additional costs. We also expect that actions by customers to reduce their emissions will continue to lower demand and potentially affect prices for fossil fuels, as will GHG emissions regulation through taxes, fees and/or other incentives. This could be a factor contributing to additional provisions for our assets and result in lower earnings, cancelled projects and potential impairment of certain assets. The physical effects of climate change such as, but not limited to, increases in temperature and sea levels and fluctuations in water levels could also adversely affect our operations and supply chains. Certain investors have decided to divest their investments in fossil fuel companies. If this were to continue, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access capital markets. Stakeholder groups are also putting pressure on commercial and investment banks to stop financing fossil fuel companies. According to press reports, some financial institutions have started to limit their exposure to fossil fuel projects. Accordingly, our ability to use financing for these types of future projects may be adversely affected. This could also adversely affect our potential partners’ ability to finance their portion of costs, either through equity or debt. In some countries, governments, regulators, organisations and individuals have filed lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for costs associated with climate change. While we believe these lawsuits to be without merit, losing could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition. For example, in May 2021, the District Court in The Hague, Netherlands, ruled that, by 2030, Shell must reduce, from its consolidated subsidiaries, its Scope 1 net emissions by 45% from its 2019 levels and use its best efforts to reduce its Scope 2 and Scope 3 net emissions by 45% from its 2019 levels. In 2019, our Scope 1 emissions from our consolidated subsidiaries were 86 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), rounded. We expect to see additional regulatory requirements to provide disclosures related to climate risks and their impact on business performance. In summary, rising climate change concerns and effects of the energy transition have led and could lead to a decrease in demand and potentially affect prices for fossil fuels. If we are unable to find economically viable, publicly acceptable solutions that reduce our GHG emissions and/or GHG intensity for new and existing projects and for the products we sell, we could experience financial penalties or extra costs, delayed or cancelled projects, potential impairments of our assets, additional provisions and/or reduced production and product sales. This could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition.

When we are not the operator, we have less influence and control over the behaviour, performance and operating costs of joint arrangements or associates. Despite having less control, we could still be exposed to the risks associated with these operations, including reputational, litigation (where joint and several liability could apply) and government sanction risks. For example, our partners or members of a joint arrangement or an associate, (particularly local partners in developing countries), may be unable to meet their financial or other obligations to projects, threatening the viability of a given project. Where we are the operator of a joint arrangement, the other partner(s) could still be able to veto or block certain decisions, which could be to our overall detriment. Accordingly, where we have limited influence, we are exposed to operational risks that could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition.

We use a range of oil and gas price assumptions, which we review on a periodic basis. These ranges help us to evaluate the robustness of our capital allocation for our evaluation of projects and commercial opportunities. If our assumptions prove to be incorrect, this could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition.