Shell’s Asset Stranding Risk Assessment for North Sea Oil Fields Amid Energy Transition

Name of the author: Martin Munyao Muinde – Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

The global energy transition towards renewable sources presents unprecedented challenges for multinational oil and gas corporations, particularly regarding the risk of asset stranding. This research paper examines Shell’s strategic approach to assessing and mitigating asset stranding risks in its North Sea oil field operations. As climate policies intensify and renewable energy technologies advance, traditional hydrocarbon assets face potential premature obsolescence. This study analyzes Shell’s comprehensive risk assessment methodologies, financial implications, and strategic repositioning within the context of the North Sea’s evolving energy landscape. The research reveals that Shell’s proactive approach to asset stranding risk assessment includes scenario-based planning, diversification into low-carbon energy solutions, and strategic divestment of high-risk assets. The findings suggest that while significant challenges remain, Shell’s integrated energy transition strategy positions the company to navigate the complex intersection of energy security, climate objectives, and financial sustainability in the North Sea region.

Keywords: Asset stranding, energy transition, North Sea oil fields, Shell, climate risk assessment, stranded assets, renewable energy, financial risk management

1. Introduction

The concept of asset stranding has emerged as a critical consideration for energy companies worldwide as the global economy transitions towards sustainable energy systems. Stranded assets are assets that no longer provide an economic return, prior to the end of their expected economic life, as a result of the energy transition. For Royal Dutch Shell plc, one of the world’s largest integrated oil and gas companies, the North Sea represents a significant operational theater where these risks manifest with particular intensity.

The North Sea has historically served as a cornerstone of Shell’s upstream operations, contributing substantially to the company’s global hydrocarbon production portfolio. However, the accelerating pace of climate policy implementation, technological advancement in renewable energy, and shifting investor sentiment towards environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria have fundamentally altered the risk profile of these assets. The potential for asset stranding in the North Sea extends beyond individual field economics to encompass broader questions of regional energy security, employment, and the pace of just transition.

Shell’s approach to asset stranding risk assessment in the North Sea reflects a sophisticated understanding of the multifaceted challenges posed by the energy transition. The company’s methodology integrates climate scenario analysis, regulatory risk assessment, technological disruption modeling, and financial valuation techniques to develop comprehensive risk profiles for individual assets and asset portfolios. This integrated approach acknowledges that asset stranding risk is not merely a function of geological or technical factors, but rather emerges from the complex interaction of policy, technology, market, and social dynamics.

The significance of Shell’s North Sea asset stranding risk assessment extends beyond the company’s immediate financial interests to encompass broader implications for the UK’s energy security, the regional economy, and the global energy transition. As governments worldwide grapple with the challenge of balancing climate ambitions with energy security concerns, the methodologies and outcomes of Shell’s risk assessment process provide valuable insights into the practical challenges of managing the transition away from fossil fuels.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

The academic literature on asset stranding has evolved rapidly in response to growing recognition of climate-related financial risks. Early conceptual work by Caldecott and McDaniels (2014) established the foundational understanding of stranded assets as investments that become unprofitable due to changes in the regulatory, technological, or market environment. Subsequent research has refined this definition and developed increasingly sophisticated frameworks for identifying, measuring, and managing stranded asset risks.

Recent empirical research has quantified the potential scale of stranded assets in the global energy system. Global stranded assets as present value of future lost profits in the upstream oil and gas sector exceed US$1 trillion under plausible changes in expectations about the effects of climate policy. This research underscores the systemic nature of stranded asset risks and the potential for significant financial disruption across the energy sector.

The theoretical framework for understanding asset stranding encompasses multiple dimensions of risk. Physical stranding occurs when assets become technically or economically unviable due to physical climate impacts or resource depletion. Regulatory stranding results from policy interventions that alter the economic viability of assets through carbon pricing, emissions standards, or direct prohibitions. Technological stranding emerges when innovation renders existing technologies obsolete, while market stranding reflects changing consumer preferences and demand patterns.

Financial stranding represents the risk that companies will never generate the financial return that investors are expecting, because as policy cuts in and technology change cuts in — for example, the switch from the petrol-driven car to the electric car — demand shifts. This form of stranding is particularly relevant for integrated oil companies like Shell, which must consider the full value chain implications of the energy transition.

The academic literature on asset stranding in the North Sea specifically remains limited, with most research focusing on global or national-level analyses. However, the unique characteristics of North Sea operations—including high operational costs, mature field profiles, and complex regulatory environments across multiple jurisdictions—create distinctive risk profiles that warrant specialized analysis.

3. Shell’s North Sea Operations: Context and Strategic Importance

Shell’s presence in the North Sea spans over five decades, representing one of the company’s most significant and longest-standing operational commitments. The company operates numerous oil and gas fields across UK and Norwegian sectors, including major assets such as the Brent field system, the Gannet cluster, and interests in various joint ventures and partnerships. These operations have contributed substantially to Shell’s global production portfolio and serve as a critical component of the company’s European energy supply strategy.

The strategic importance of Shell’s North Sea operations extends beyond immediate production contributions to encompass technological innovation, operational expertise, and regional energy security considerations. The North Sea has served as a testing ground for advanced drilling technologies, enhanced oil recovery techniques, and offshore engineering solutions that have been subsequently deployed in Shell’s global operations. The region’s mature field characteristics and challenging operational environment have driven continuous innovation in reservoir management, production optimization, and cost reduction strategies.

However, the operational context of Shell’s North Sea assets presents unique challenges in the context of asset stranding risk assessment. The region’s mature field profile means that many assets are in the later stages of their productive lives, with declining production rates and increasing operational costs. This maturity profile creates inherent vulnerability to market and regulatory changes that could accelerate the timeline for field abandonment and decommissioning.

The regulatory environment in the North Sea adds additional complexity to asset stranding risk assessment. Operations span multiple jurisdictions with evolving climate policies, tax regimes, and environmental regulations. The UK government’s commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 and the EU’s Green Deal create potential for significant policy-driven stranding risks, while the North Sea Transition Deal represents an attempt to balance climate objectives with energy security considerations.

Shell has published its first energy transition update since the launch of its Powering Progress strategy in 2021, emphasizing how the strategy delivers more value with less emissions. This strategic evolution reflects Shell’s recognition that traditional approaches to asset development and management must be fundamentally reconsidered in light of climate risks and energy transition dynamics.

4. Asset Stranding Risk Assessment Methodology

Shell’s approach to asset stranding risk assessment in the North Sea employs a comprehensive methodology that integrates multiple analytical frameworks and risk assessment tools. The company’s methodology recognizes that asset stranding risk emerges from the complex interaction of multiple drivers, requiring sophisticated modeling approaches that can capture both individual risk factors and their interdependencies.

The foundation of Shell’s risk assessment methodology lies in scenario-based analysis that considers multiple possible futures for the global and regional energy system. The energy system adapts as AI catalyses changes across a society seeking economic growth, national security and climate mitigation. These scenarios incorporate varying assumptions about the pace of climate policy implementation, technological development, market evolution, and societal change to generate probabilistic assessments of asset stranding risk under different conditions.

Climate scenario analysis forms a critical component of Shell’s assessment methodology, drawing on established frameworks such as the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook scenarios and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Representative Concentration Pathways. These scenarios provide the foundation for modeling potential demand trajectories for North Sea oil and gas production under different climate policy assumptions.

Regulatory risk assessment constitutes another key element of Shell’s methodology, involving detailed analysis of existing and anticipated policy developments across relevant jurisdictions. This analysis considers both direct regulatory impacts, such as carbon pricing and emissions standards, and indirect effects through changes in fiscal regimes, environmental requirements, and planning approvals. The assessment incorporates probabilistic modeling of policy development timelines and intensity levels to generate quantitative risk measures.

Technological disruption modeling examines the potential impact of renewable energy advancement, energy storage development, and alternative fuel technologies on demand for North Sea hydrocarbons. This analysis considers both the direct substitution effects of renewable technologies and the broader system-level impacts of technological change on energy market structure and pricing.

Financial valuation techniques integrate the outputs of scenario, regulatory, and technological analysis to generate quantitative assessments of asset stranding risk. These techniques employ discounted cash flow models with stochastic inputs to generate probability distributions of asset values under different risk scenarios. The analysis incorporates consideration of abandonment optionality, decommissioning liabilities, and strategic value considerations that may influence asset retention decisions.

5. Financial Implications and Risk Quantification

The financial implications of asset stranding risk in Shell’s North Sea operations are substantial and multifaceted, encompassing both direct asset value impacts and broader portfolio-level considerations. Shell’s risk quantification methodology attempts to capture these various dimensions of financial exposure through sophisticated modeling approaches that integrate multiple risk factors and their potential interactions.

Direct asset value impacts represent the most immediate financial consequence of asset stranding risk. These impacts arise from potential premature cessation of production, accelerated decommissioning timelines, and reduced recovery of proven reserves. Shell’s financial modeling suggests that under aggressive climate policy scenarios, significant portions of the company’s North Sea reserve base could become uneconomic to extract, leading to substantial write-downs of asset book values.

Fossil fuel reserves will suffer a devaluation of 37%–50%, amounting to $13-$17 trillion globally, implying a strong incentive for fossil fuel producers to continue resisting climate stabilization. While this global figure cannot be directly applied to Shell’s North Sea operations, it provides context for the potential scale of financial impact that asset stranding could generate across the company’s portfolio.

Decommissioning liability acceleration represents another significant financial risk associated with asset stranding in the North Sea. The region’s mature field profile means that most assets carry substantial decommissioning obligations that are typically spread over extended production timelines. Premature field abandonment due to stranding risks could require acceleration of these decommissioning expenditures, creating significant cash flow impacts and balance sheet pressures.

Portfolio-level financial implications extend beyond individual asset impacts to encompass broader strategic and operational considerations. Asset stranding in the North Sea could affect Shell’s ability to maintain operational scale and efficiency in the region, potentially creating knock-on effects for remaining assets. The fixed cost structure of North Sea operations means that premature asset retirement could increase unit costs for continuing operations, creating additional stranding pressure on remaining assets.

Shell’s financial risk quantification incorporates consideration of risk mitigation strategies and their associated costs. These strategies include accelerated production schedules to maximize recovery before potential stranding, investment in enhanced oil recovery technologies to improve asset economics, and portfolio high-grading through strategic divestment of high-risk assets. The financial analysis weighs the costs of these mitigation strategies against their potential benefits in reducing overall stranding risk exposure.

The company’s approach to financial risk communication has evolved to provide greater transparency regarding asset stranding risks and their potential financial implications. Shell announced a 4% increase in dividend per share and launched another share buyback program of $3.5 billion, demonstrating continued financial strength despite energy transition challenges. This financial performance indicates that Shell has thus far successfully managed the immediate financial impacts of transition risks while positioning for long-term sustainability.

6. Strategic Response and Mitigation Measures

Shell’s strategic response to asset stranding risks in the North Sea encompasses a comprehensive portfolio of mitigation measures designed to reduce exposure while positioning the company for long-term success in the evolving energy landscape. The company’s approach recognizes that effective risk mitigation requires both defensive measures to protect existing assets and offensive strategies to develop new opportunities in the low-carbon energy space.

Portfolio optimization represents a key element of Shell’s mitigation strategy, involving systematic evaluation of asset risk profiles and strategic decisions regarding retention, divestment, or operational modification. This optimization process considers multiple factors including asset quality, remaining reserves, operational costs, regulatory environment, and strategic fit within Shell’s evolving business model. High-risk assets with limited strategic value may be candidates for divestment, while core assets with strong economics and strategic importance receive continued investment and operational optimization.

Operational efficiency improvements constitute another critical mitigation strategy, focusing on reducing the breakeven costs of North Sea operations to maintain economic viability under challenging market conditions. These improvements encompass technological innovation, process optimization, cost reduction initiatives, and productivity enhancements that collectively improve asset competitiveness. Shell’s digital transformation initiatives, including deployment of artificial intelligence and advanced analytics, contribute to these efficiency improvements.

Shell has earmarked $10-15 billion in low-carbon solutions between 2023 and 2025, recognizing the critical role of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) as a transition fuel with a focus on 20-30% growth of its LNG business by 2030. This investment strategy demonstrates Shell’s commitment to diversification as a core element of its risk mitigation approach.

Strategic diversification into low-carbon energy solutions represents Shell’s most significant long-term mitigation strategy. The company’s energy transition strategy encompasses investment in renewable electricity generation, hydrogen production, carbon capture and storage, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. These investments serve dual purposes of creating new revenue streams while reducing dependence on traditional hydrocarbon operations that face stranding risks.

The development of hydrogen production capabilities represents a particularly strategic mitigation approach for Shell’s North Sea operations. The region’s existing infrastructure, technical expertise, and proximity to European demand centers create potential opportunities for hydrogen production using both blue hydrogen (with carbon capture) and green hydrogen (using renewable electricity) pathways. These developments could extend the productive life of North Sea infrastructure while contributing to decarbonization objectives.

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies present another avenue for mitigating asset stranding risks in the North Sea. Shell’s involvement in projects such as the Northern Lights CCUS initiative demonstrates the company’s commitment to developing these technologies as both a business opportunity and a means of extending the viability of hydrocarbon operations. CCUS deployment could potentially allow continued operation of North Sea assets under stringent climate policies by enabling near-zero emissions production.

Strategic partnerships and joint ventures play an increasingly important role in Shell’s risk mitigation strategy. Collaboration with other industry participants, technology companies, and government entities enables risk sharing, cost reduction, and accelerated development of innovative solutions. The North Sea Transition Deal represents a significant example of public-private collaboration aimed at managing the transition while maintaining energy security and economic benefits.

7. Regulatory Environment and Policy Implications

The regulatory environment governing Shell’s North Sea operations is characterized by increasing complexity and uncertainty as governments across multiple jurisdictions implement climate policies designed to achieve net-zero emissions commitments. This evolving regulatory landscape creates both direct compliance obligations and indirect market impacts that significantly influence asset stranding risk profiles.

The UK government’s commitment to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 has established a clear policy trajectory that will impact North Sea operations over the coming decades. The government’s approach, as outlined in various strategy documents and policy consultations, seeks to balance climate objectives with energy security considerations and economic impacts on communities dependent on oil and gas activities. The Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme is the government’s main mechanism for supporting low carbon electricity generation projects in Great Britain, with the seventh CfD allocation round anticipated to open in summer 2025.

Carbon pricing mechanisms represent one of the most direct regulatory impacts on asset stranding risk in the North Sea. The UK’s participation in international carbon pricing initiatives and the potential for national carbon tax implementation create additional operational costs that could accelerate the timeline for asset stranding. Shell’s risk assessment methodology incorporates various carbon price scenarios to evaluate potential impacts on asset economics.

Environmental regulations governing offshore operations continue to evolve in response to climate objectives and environmental protection concerns. These regulations encompass emissions standards, environmental impact assessment requirements, and operational restrictions that can affect the economic viability of individual assets. The cumulative impact of incremental regulatory changes can create significant shifts in asset economics over time.

Fiscal regime changes represent another significant regulatory risk factor for North Sea operations. Government efforts to balance revenue generation with climate objectives may result in modifications to taxation, royalty rates, and depletion allowances that affect asset profitability. The potential for windfall profit taxes during periods of high commodity prices adds additional uncertainty to long-term investment planning.

The Norwegian regulatory environment presents both similarities and differences compared to UK jurisdiction, creating additional complexity for Shell’s cross-border North Sea operations. Norway’s approach to energy transition emphasizes the role of natural gas as a transition fuel while promoting development of renewable energy and hydrogen production capabilities. This policy framework creates different risk profiles for assets in Norwegian versus UK waters.

European Union climate policies, while not directly applicable to UK operations post-Brexit, continue to influence North Sea dynamics through their impact on continental European energy demand and regulatory harmonization efforts. The EU’s Green Deal and associated legislation create market signals that affect long-term demand projections for North Sea hydrocarbons.

8. Case Studies and Asset-Specific Analysis

Examining specific assets within Shell’s North Sea portfolio provides valuable insights into how asset stranding risks manifest at the operational level and how the company’s risk assessment methodology translates into practical decision-making. While comprehensive asset-level data remains proprietary, publicly available information and industry analysis enable examination of representative cases that illustrate broader patterns and challenges.

The Brent field system represents one of Shell’s most significant and longest-operating North Sea assets, providing a valuable case study in how mature field characteristics interact with stranding risks. As one of the original North Sea developments, Brent has undergone multiple phases of development, production optimization, and infrastructure modification over its operational life. The field’s current status as a mature, declining asset with substantial decommissioning obligations illustrates the complex risk calculations that Shell must navigate in the energy transition context.

Shell’s decommissioning strategy for the Brent field system demonstrates the company’s approach to managing end-of-life assets in an era of heightened climate sensitivity. The company’s decision-making process incorporates consideration of regulatory requirements, environmental impacts, cost optimization, and stakeholder engagement in developing decommissioning plans that balance multiple objectives. This experience provides valuable precedents for managing similar decisions across Shell’s broader North Sea portfolio.

Shell has greenlighted its planned two-well drilling campaign in 2024 while site survey works in the North Sea have been finished. This continued investment activity demonstrates that Shell maintains confidence in selected North Sea opportunities despite broader stranding risks, illustrating the importance of asset-specific analysis in strategic decision-making.

The Gannet cluster represents another instructive case study, illustrating how Shell approaches risk assessment for mid-life assets with remaining development potential. The cluster’s combination of producing wells, undeveloped reserves, and infrastructure sharing arrangements creates a complex risk profile that requires sophisticated analysis to evaluate optimal development strategies under various transition scenarios.

Shell’s approach to the Gannet cluster incorporates consideration of accelerated development scenarios designed to maximize value recovery before potential stranding occurs. This strategy involves trade-offs between near-term capital investment and long-term stranding risk exposure, requiring careful optimization of development timing and scale under uncertainty.

Smaller satellite fields and marginal developments within Shell’s North Sea portfolio present different risk profiles and strategic considerations. These assets typically have higher breakeven costs and shorter payback periods, making them more vulnerable to market volatility and regulatory changes. Shell’s approach to these assets emphasizes flexibility and optionality, with development decisions contingent on market conditions and regulatory clarity.

Joint venture arrangements add additional complexity to asset-specific risk assessment, as stranding risks must be evaluated in the context of partner objectives and decision-making processes. Shell’s experience in managing joint venture dynamics under transition uncertainty provides insights into the challenges of coordinating risk management strategies across multiple stakeholders with potentially divergent interests.

9. Future Outlook and Recommendations

The future outlook for Shell’s North Sea operations is characterized by significant uncertainty as the interplay between energy transition dynamics, regulatory evolution, and market forces continues to unfold. Shell’s strategic positioning for this uncertain future requires careful balancing of multiple objectives including financial performance, climate commitments, energy security contributions, and stakeholder expectations.

Near-term prospects for Shell’s North Sea operations are likely to be influenced by several key factors including global energy demand recovery, commodity price volatility, regulatory policy implementation, and technological advancement in both hydrocarbon and renewable energy sectors. The company’s ability to maintain operational flexibility while optimizing asset performance will be critical to navigating these near-term challenges successfully.

Medium-term outlook considerations encompass the anticipated acceleration of climate policy implementation and renewable energy deployment across European markets. Shell’s strategic response to these developments will likely involve continued portfolio optimization, selective investment in advantaged assets, and accelerated development of low-carbon energy capabilities. The company’s success in managing this transition will depend significantly on its ability to execute complex investment and divestment decisions under uncertainty.

Long-term strategic positioning requires Shell to fundamentally reimagine the role of its North Sea operations within a decarbonized energy system. This reimagining may involve transformation of existing infrastructure for hydrogen production, carbon storage, or renewable energy applications, while maintaining capability to supply essential hydrocarbons during the transition period. The company’s investment in research and development of these transformational technologies will be critical to long-term success.

Based on the analysis presented in this research, several recommendations emerge for Shell’s continued management of asset stranding risks in the North Sea. First, the company should continue to enhance its risk assessment methodologies to incorporate evolving understanding of transition dynamics and their interactions. This enhancement should include improved integration of social and political factors that influence transition pathways.

Second, Shell should accelerate its development of alternative revenue streams from North Sea assets, particularly in hydrogen production and carbon storage applications. These developments offer potential to extend asset life and maintain regional economic benefits while contributing to decarbonization objectives. Strategic partnerships with government entities and other industry participants will be essential to realizing these opportunities.

Third, the company should maintain transparency regarding asset stranding risks and mitigation strategies to enable informed stakeholder decision-making. This transparency should encompass both quantitative risk assessments and qualitative strategic considerations that influence asset management decisions. Enhanced stakeholder engagement will be critical to building social license for continued operations during the transition period.

10. Conclusion

Shell’s approach to asset stranding risk assessment for North Sea oil fields amid the energy transition represents a sophisticated and evolving response to one of the most significant challenges facing the global energy industry. The company’s comprehensive methodology integrates multiple analytical frameworks to generate nuanced understanding of how climate policies, technological change, and market evolution interact to create stranding risks for individual assets and asset portfolios.

The analysis presented in this research demonstrates that asset stranding risk in the North Sea is not simply a binary outcome but rather a complex, probabilistic phenomenon that varies significantly across assets, time horizons, and scenario assumptions. Shell’s recognition of this complexity is reflected in its strategic approach, which emphasizes flexibility, optionality, and continuous adaptation rather than rigid adherence to predetermined strategies.

The financial implications of asset stranding risks are substantial but manageable within Shell’s broader portfolio context, provided the company continues to execute effective risk mitigation strategies. The company’s investment in low-carbon energy solutions, operational efficiency improvements, and strategic portfolio optimization positions it to navigate the challenges of the energy transition while maintaining financial sustainability.

The regulatory environment governing North Sea operations will continue to evolve in response to climate commitments and energy security considerations. Shell’s ability to engage constructively with regulatory processes while maintaining operational flexibility will be critical to successful navigation of this evolving landscape. The company’s experience in managing complex regulatory environments provides a foundation for addressing future challenges.

Looking forward, Shell’s success in managing asset stranding risks in the North Sea will depend on its ability to balance multiple objectives including financial performance, climate contributions, energy security, and stakeholder expectations. The company’s integrated approach to these challenges, encompassing both defensive risk mitigation and offensive opportunity development, provides a framework for continued success in an uncertain environment.

The broader implications of Shell’s experience extend beyond the company’s immediate interests to encompass lessons for the global energy industry and policymakers managing the energy transition. The methodologies and strategies developed through Shell’s North Sea experience may prove valuable for other operators facing similar challenges in mature hydrocarbon basins worldwide.

Ultimately, Shell’s asset stranding risk assessment for North Sea oil fields amid the energy transition illustrates both the challenges and opportunities inherent in managing industrial transformation under uncertainty. The company’s continued evolution of its approaches and strategies will provide valuable insights into the practical aspects of achieving sustainable energy systems while maintaining economic viability and social license.

References

Caldecott, B., & McDaniels, J. (2014). Stranded generation assets: Implications for European capacity mechanisms, energy markets and climate policy. University of Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

Carbon Tracker Initiative. (2021, February 2). Stranded Assets. Retrieved from https://carbontracker.org/terms/stranded-assets/

Carbon Tracker Initiative. (2024, April 16). Investors Need to Look Carefully at Stranded Asset Risks. Retrieved from https://carbontracker.org/investors-need-to-look-carefully-at-stranded-asset-risks/

CNBC. (2025, January 30). Shell posts weaker-than-expected full-year profit on lower oil prices. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/30/shell-earnings-full-year-and-q4-2024.html

Deloitte Insights. (2025, January 27). 2025 Oil and Gas Industry Outlook. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/oil-and-gas/oil-and-gas-industry-outlook.html

ESG Voices. (2024, April 1). Shell’s Path to Net-Zero: The 2024 Energy Transition Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.esgvoices.com/post/shell-path-to-net-zero-the-2024-energy-transition-strategy

GOV.UK. (2025, March 5). Building the North Sea’s Energy Future: consultation document. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/building-the-north-seas-energy-future/building-the-north-seas-energy-future-consultation-document-accessible-webpage

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. (2023, December 11). What are stranded assets? Retrieved from https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-are-stranded-assets/

KPMG. (2022, December 1). Considerations for climate stranded assets. Retrieved from https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2022/considerations-for-climate-stranded-assets.html

Mercure, J. F., Salas, P., Vercoulen, P., Semieniuk, G., Lam, A., Pollitt, H., … & Holden, P. B. (2022). Stranded fossil-fuel assets translate to major losses for investors in advanced economies. Nature Climate Change, 12(6), 532-538.

Offshore Energy. (2023, December 18). Shell greenlights drilling program for 2024 and wraps up survey work in North Sea. Retrieved from https://www.offshore-energy.biz/shell-greenlights-drilling-program-for-2024-and-wraps-up-survey-work-in-north-sea/

Shell Global. (2024). Shell publishes Energy Transition Strategy 2024. Retrieved from https://www.shell.com/news-and-insights/newsroom/news-and-media-releases/2024/shell-publishes-energy-transition-strategy-2024.html

Shell Global. (2025). The 2025 Energy Security Scenarios. Retrieved from https://www.shell.com/news-and-insights/scenarios/the-2025-energy-security-scenarios.html

Shell plc. (2024). Energy Transition Strategy 2024. Retrieved from https://reports.shell.com/energy-transition-strategy/2024/

van der Ploeg, F., & Rezai, A. (2020). Stranded assets and reduced profits: Analyzing the economic underpinnings of the fossil fuel industry’s resistance to climate stabilization. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 141, 110834.