OPINION: Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden used a film clip to boast about $35 billion worth of free cash being generated by Shell come 2025.

“Welcome. Jessica (Uhl, chief financial officer) and I are excited to update you today on how we are positioning Shell for the future of energy,” declared a tie-less Van Beurden in a slick video released for the company’s 2019 management day this week.

He went on to talk about $125 billion worth of share buybacks and dividends that will be handed out over five years from 2021.

It was only after talking up the “world-class investment case” that Van Beurden moved on to how the Anglo-Dutch supermajor will thrive in the switch to low carbon.

The message was clear: Shell is looking and sounding like a forward-thinking business — excited, not intimidated, by new energy trends.

This has extra resonance, given a live presentation to media and analysts with the same message was taking place yards away from where Shell’s London headquarters were recently attacked by eco-protestors.

Van Beurden claims the climate change protests can be welcomed as they raise a public debate about how and where we secure our energy.

ExxonMobil has also made clear it wants to develop its business with a lower-carbon future in mind.

However, it does not like being told what to do and seems more comfortable batting away climate critics on the basis that they are a colourful inconvenience around annual general meetings.

ExxonMobil no doubt feels it has plotted a successful course through its near 150-year history by doing what it thinks best.

The board of the the world’s largest publicly-listed oil company declined once again at its AGM to bend to dissident shareholders on its continuing mix of the chairman and chief executive roles. Critics claim leaving Darren Woods in charge of both roles is not only bad corporate governance practice, but also inhibits strong action on global warming.

At the Dallas AGM last week the number of investors calling for a split in the senior roles hit nearly 41%, up from 39% in 2018. But this is still far short of the simple majority needed for a rule change.

The board, which believes the current management structure leaves it better placed to make quick decisions, also successfully headed off a demand to appoint a special board member on climate change plus a report on the risks of global warming to its US Gulf Coast chemical plants.

Meanwhile, executives at US rival Chevron had an even easier ride — only 26% of investors supported a call for an independent chairman, and only 8% of shareholders liked the idea of a special board member to cover climate issues.

That contrasted with the 99% of shareholders who last month called on BP to ensure it set targets to reduce carbon emissions from its operations.

Both BP and Shell have recently had their head offices targeted by climate protesters.

Pressure on the streets and in the boardroom is clearly more intense in Europe than in the US - and certainly more than in Asia.

Yet, while oil companies are diverging on how they plan to face the energy transition — and perhaps the video camera — fossil fuels are still making the big money.

(This is an Upstream opinion article.)

Weekly

OPINION: Europe leans green as majors diverge