Shell responsible investor briefing in London – April 16, 2018

Royal Dutch Shell April 16, 2018
Royal Dutch Shell plc
April 16, 2018
Responsible Investment Annual Briefing
Socially responsible investors
#makethefuture

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

Panels
Osagie Okunbor
Managing Director SPDC
Monika Hausenblas
EVP Safety and Environment
Rupert Thomas
VP Environment
Harry Brekelmans
Director Projects and Technology
Angus Gillespie
VP CO2 (transitioning)
John MacArthur
VP 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 spills
Volume 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
Theft
Cap 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

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

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

Donny Ching
Legal Director
Royal Dutch Shell

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 Malabu
Malabu 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
2011
Settlement 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

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

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

Ben van Beurden
Chief Executive Officer
Royal Dutch Shell

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

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

Leading in transparency
RDS reporting
2017
 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

Hans Wijers
Chair of the CSRC
Royal Dutch Shell

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

Areas of focus
CSRC topics
2017 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

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 expanded:
 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

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 transition
and climate change
 CSRC
 Remuneration Committee
 Audit committee
2018 priorities:
 Energy transition
 New energies
business strategy
implementation
21

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 2017
0
250
500
0
5
10
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
0
5
10
15
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
0
200
400
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Working hoursTRCF Volume Number
Tier 1 incidents Tier 2 incidents
23

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 and
inclusion
A diverse and inclusive
work environment
Human
performance
and care
Caring 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 leadership
Behavioural and
road safety
Intentional and relentless
focus on personal and
process safety across Shell
Care
24
Better business
outcomes

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 sabotage
impacts onshore
operations
Livewire alternative livelihoods
Workers at the Afam VI Power Plant
25

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 Zero
Emissions
32 gt CO2e CO2
43 gt CO2e
current policies
2 0 4 0
Increasing population
Increasing energy demand
Need to reduce CO2 emissions
26

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 2070
Oil Biofuels
Natural Gas Biomass
Coal Nuclear
Solar Wind
Other 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

Driving to
resilience and
ambition
Demonstrating Shell’s approach across multiple time horizons
TIME HORIZON
SHORT TERM
GHG
management
 Focussed on
operational action
 Included in annual
bonus scorecard
MEDIUM TERM
Strategic positioning and
portfolio resilience
 Disclosures aligned to TCFD
recommendations
 Demonstrate financial resilience
of portfolio to energy transition and
climate change actions
LONG TERM
Net 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

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
$#

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
INTEGRATED
GAS
Since BG, underlying
operating expenses -11%
CHEMICALS
Pennsylvania ethylene cracker
expected top quartile CO2 intensity
OIL
PRODUCTS
INTEGRATED
GAS
CHEMICALS
SHALESNEW
ENERGIES
Cash
engines
Growth
priorities
Emerging
opportunities
DEEP WATER
CONVENTIONAL
OIL + GAS

Ambition – Net
Carbon Footprint
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
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

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
3 CCS: Carbon Capture and Storage, NBS: Nature based solutions
Emissions from energy products included within the Net Carbon Footprint framework
Full lifecycle1 of our
energy products,
including consumption
Sales
Sales
Sales
Processing
Liquefaction
Gas-to-liquid
Refining
Renewable
Energy
Oil and gas
Extraction
Oil
Natural gas
LNG
GTL
Third-party
crude
Third-party
products
Third-party
products 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-party
gas Third-party
products
Processing

Our Net Carbon Footprint ambition
moves 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

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 solutions
IH2® demonstration facility, India

Questions and Answers
Ben van Beurden
Chief Executive Officer
Hans Wijers
Chair of the CSRC
Harry Brekelmans
Projects and Technology Director
Donny Ching
Legal Director

Maarten Wetselaar
Integrated Gas and New Energies Director
Royal Dutch Shell

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

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

Reducing
methane emissions
Product
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 advance
the 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

 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

 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

 Adjacencies to
existing businesses
 Value chain
integrator
 Demand-driven
development
Power value chain
CUSTOMERS OPTIMISATION
SUPPLY AND
GENERATION
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 sites1
1 Projects shown are pre-FID
42

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

Questions and Answers
Maarten Wetselaar
Integrated Gas and
New Energies Director
Mark Gainsborough
EVP New Energies

Additional information

2017 2018/19
NAM
A 50:50 Joint Venture with
Shell and ExxonMobil
August
5 years
since
Huizinge
earthquake
(force 3.6)
April
Production cut by
10% to 21.6bcm
March
NAM at a
distance
November
Raad van State announces
judgment appeals against
Ministry of Economic Affairs’
amended decision on gas
extraction Groningen
November
NAM submits
updated
Hazard
and Risk
Assessment
to SodM1
January
Earthquake Zeerijp with a force
of 3.4 on the scale of Richter
January
SodM advice to minister
on gasproduction level.
Gasproduction locations
Loppersum shut down
March
Damage claims public desk
opened (‘NAM at a distance’)
47
January
Minister Wiebes announces
new damage protocol
March
Ministry of Economic Affairs
announces “Groningen to
zero” by 2030
Source: www.nam.nl, 1 State Supervision of the Mines

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 spills
Volume 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
Production (SPDC JV) (RHS)
Thousand barrels per day Thousand barrels of oil
equivalent per day
Theft
Number

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 created
jobs and contributed
>£20 billion in tax
revenue1
Brent, United Kingdom
49

Human rights  Integrated approach
 Informed by Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
core conventions of International Labour
Organization 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

Directors’
remuneration
policy
Longterm
Long Term
Incentive Plan
(LTIP)
Annual
bonus
Fixed
remuneration
Shareholding &
holding periods
Malus + clawback
Shortterm
 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% Safety
10% GHG
50% Operational
excellence
12.5% Project delivery
12.5% Production
12.5% LNG sales
12.5% DS availability
25% TSR
25% ROACE
25% FCF
25% CFFO
50% cash
50% shares
51

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
TOP
EVENT
Design
Integrity
Technical
Integrity
Operating
Integrity
Integrity
Leadership
GOAL
ZERO
NO
HARM
NO
LEAKS
NO HARM
TO PEOPLE
NO LEAKS
FROM OUR
OPERATIONS

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
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

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

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 licence
should 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

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

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

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

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

Shell responsible investor briefing in London – April 16, 2018

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Shell responsible investor briefing in London – April 16, 2018 (20)

More from Shell plc (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

Shell responsible investor briefing in London – April 16, 2018