theguardian.com
Shell Gives Investors Multibillion-Dollar Windfall Despite Falling Profits
Shell reported $23.7bn in profit for 2024, lower than expected but still leading to a 4% dividend increase and $3.5bn in share buybacks, despite falling oil and gas prices and Greenpeace criticisms of their environmental impact.
- What are the immediate consequences of Shell's 2024 financial performance for its shareholders?
- Shell, Europe's largest oil company, reported a 2024 profit of $23.7bn, lower than anticipated but still resulting in a 4% dividend increase and $3.5bn in share buybacks. This continues a trend of significant investor returns despite falling earnings from oil and gas.
- How do Shell's actions relate to fluctuating oil and gas prices and broader geopolitical events?
- Despite reduced annual profits, from $40bn in 2022 to $23.7bn in 2024, Shell maintains strong cash flow and cost-cutting measures, allowing continued high payouts to investors. This is in contrast to falling oil and gas prices, averaging $80.20 per barrel in 2024 compared to over $100 in 2022.
- What are the long-term implications of Shell's financial strategy concerning climate change and its responsibilities?
- The lower oil and gas prices, despite geopolitical instability, signal a potential shift in the energy market. Shell's strategy of prioritizing investor returns amidst decreasing profits raises questions about the long-term sustainability of this model and its implications for climate action.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames Shell's actions in a largely positive light, emphasizing the dividend increase and share buybacks as positive outcomes despite lower-than-expected profits. The headline could be considered subtly positive by highlighting the windfall for investors. The repeated emphasis on the financial returns to investors overshadows concerns about the environmental impact of Shell's operations. The sequencing presents the shareholder payouts before mentioning the criticisms of Greenpeace.
Language Bias
The article uses language that subtly favors Shell. Phrases like "multibillion-dollar windfall" and "healthy returns" present the financial gains in a positive light. The description of profits as "weaker-than-expected" but still substantial minimizes the drop in earnings. More neutral alternatives could include "substantial payouts to investors" instead of "windfall" and "financial returns" instead of "healthy returns.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of Shell's investments in renewable energy or other climate mitigation efforts, which could provide a more balanced perspective on the company's overall approach to sustainability. It also doesn't detail the specifics of the "$3bn in costs shaved from the business." Further, the article focuses heavily on the financial returns to shareholders without significant discussion of the social and environmental consequences of Shell's operations. The impact of these omissions is a potentially skewed perception of Shell's overall performance and responsibility.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by focusing primarily on the financial success of Shell while only briefly mentioning criticisms from environmental groups. This implies a simplistic view of the complexities surrounding oil companies' profits and their role in climate change. The narrative does not explore the potential for balancing shareholder returns with environmental responsibility.
Sustainable Development Goals
Shell's continued investment in oil and gas despite falling profits and the climate crisis contradicts efforts to mitigate climate change. The company's prioritization of shareholder returns over climate action, as highlighted by Greenpeace's criticism, negatively impacts progress towards climate goals. The quote from Elena Polisano directly addresses this conflict.