Question: Downstream operations produces what percent of Shell's profits worldwide?

Answer: a third

<hl> Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. <hl> The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.

Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates <hl> a third <hl> of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.

question: Downstream operations produces what percent of Shell's profits worldwide?, context: Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.


Question: How many petrol stationsare included in Shell's downstream operations global network?

Answer: more than 40,000

<hl> Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. <hl> The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.

Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of <hl> more than 40,000 <hl> petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.

question: How many petrol stationsare included in Shell's downstream operations global network?, context: Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.


Question: Prior to the 1990s, Shell's downstream businesses were essentially considered what kind of businesses?

Answer: local

Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. <hl> The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. <hl> In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.

Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially <hl> local <hl> and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.

question: Prior to the 1990s, Shell's downstream businesses were essentially considered what kind of businesses?, context: Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.


Question: In what way did the business paradigm of Shell's downstream operations begin to change?

Answer: the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced

Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. <hl> In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced . <hl> Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.

Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and <hl> the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced <hl>. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.

In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and <hl> the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced <hl> .

question: In what way did the business paradigm of Shell's downstream operations begin to change?, context: Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.


Question: What did Shell announce in April 2010?

Answer: its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios"

<hl> In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios" . <hl> In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

In April 2010, Shell announced <hl> its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios" <hl>. In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

In April 2010, Shell announced <hl> its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios" <hl> .

question: What did Shell announce in April 2010?, context: In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.


Question: What happened in several countries in response to Shell's April 2010 announcement?

Answer: protests and strikes broke out

In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". <hl> In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out . <hl> Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, <hl> protests and strikes broke out <hl>. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

In several countries such as Tunisia, <hl> protests and strikes broke out <hl> .

question: What happened in several countries in response to Shell's April 2010 announcement?, context: In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.


Question: In June 2013, Shell announced a review of its operations in which country?

Answer: Nigeria

In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. <hl> In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria , hinting that assets could be divested. <hl> In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in <hl> Nigeria <hl>, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in <hl> Nigeria <hl> , hinting that assets could be divested.

question: In June 2013, Shell announced a review of its operations in which country?, context: In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.


Question: In August 2014, Shell announced it was in the process of doing what?

Answer: finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. <hl> In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields. <hl>

In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of <hl> finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields. <hl>

question: In August 2014, Shell announced it was in the process of doing what?, context: In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.


Question: What did Shell indicate was a reason for the strategic review of operations in Nigeria?

Answer: assets could be divested

In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. <hl> In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested . <hl> In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that <hl> assets could be divested <hl>. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that <hl> assets could be divested <hl> .

question: What did Shell indicate was a reason for the strategic review of operations in Nigeria?, context: In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.


Question: What company was the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia?

Answer: Reitan Group

<hl> On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group , the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. <hl> On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and <hl> Reitan Group <hl>, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and <hl> Reitan Group <hl> , the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country.

question: What company was the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia?, context: On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.


Question: In what year did Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group announce an agreement?

Answer: 2007

<hl> On 27 August 2007 , Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. <hl> On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

On 27 August <hl> 2007 <hl>, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

On 27 August <hl> 2007 <hl> , Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country.

question: In what year did Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group announce an agreement?, context: On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.


Question: How many service stations did Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group agree to re-brand?

Answer: some 269

<hl> On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. <hl> On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand <hl> some 269 <hl> service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

question: How many service stations did Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group agree to re-brand?, context: On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.


Question: Shell announced it was in the process of doing what in April 2010?

Answer: trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland

On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. <hl> On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. <hl> On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of <hl> trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland <hl> and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

question: Shell announced it was in the process of doing what in April 2010?, context: On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.


Question: In October 2010, Shell sold what to St1?

Answer: gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden

On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. <hl> On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. <hl> Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's <hl> gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden <hl> were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

question: In October 2010, Shell sold what to St1?, context: On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.


Question: Shell Oil Company's United States business throughout its early history is described as what?

Answer: substantially independent

<hl> Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. <hl> However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was <hl> substantially independent <hl> with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

question: Shell Oil Company's United States business throughout its early history is described as what?, context: Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.


Question: On which exchange was Shell Oil Company's U.S. stock historically traded?

Answer: the NYSE

<hl> Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. <hl> However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on <hl> the NYSE <hl> and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

question: On which exchange was Shell Oil Company's U.S. stock historically traded?, context: Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.


Question: Shell Oil Company historically had little direct involvement from what entity in the running of its American businesses?

Answer: the group's central offices

<hl> Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. <hl> However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from <hl> the group's central offices <hl> in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

question: Shell Oil Company historically had little direct involvement from what entity in the running of its American businesses?, context: Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.


Question: In what year did Royal Dutch Shell make a bid to purchase approximately 30% of Shell Oil Company's shares?

Answer: 1984

Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. <hl> However, in 1984 , Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion. <hl>

Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in <hl> 1984 <hl>, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

However, in <hl> 1984 <hl> , Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

question: In what year did Royal Dutch Shell make a bid to purchase approximately 30% of Shell Oil Company's shares?, context: Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.


Question: What did Royal Dutch Shell's bid to purchase Shell Oil Company's shares lead to?

Answer: a court case

Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. <hl> However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case , Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion. <hl>

Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to <hl> a court case <hl>, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to <hl> a court case <hl> , Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

question: What did Royal Dutch Shell's bid to purchase Shell Oil Company's shares lead to?, context: Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.


Question: The final investment decision for what was finalized by Royal Dutch Shell in May 2011?

Answer: the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility

<hl> On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. <hl> FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.

On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for <hl> the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility <hl> was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.

question: The final investment decision for what was finalized by Royal Dutch Shell in May 2011?, context: On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.


Question: The remote offshore Prelude field was discovered where?

Answer: off Australia's northwestern coast

<hl> On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. <hl> FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.

On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located <hl> off Australia's northwestern coast <hl> and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.

question: The remote offshore Prelude field was discovered where?, context: On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.


Question: On what developments was FLNG technology based?

Answer: liquefied natural gas (LNG)

On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. <hl> FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way. <hl>

On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on <hl> liquefied natural gas (LNG) <hl> developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.

question: On what developments was FLNG technology based?, context: On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.


Question: The Prelude field was estimated to contain how many cubic feet of natural gas reserves?

Answer: 3 trillion

<hl> On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. <hl> FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.

On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about <hl> 3 trillion <hl> cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.

question: The Prelude field was estimated to contain how many cubic feet of natural gas reserves?, context: On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.


Question: FLNG technology faciliates what?

Answer: the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas

On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. <hl> FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas , often too small to extract any other way. <hl>

On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates <hl> the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas <hl>, often too small to extract any other way.

FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates <hl> the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas <hl> , often too small to extract any other way.

question: FLNG technology faciliates what?, context: On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.


Question: What percent of its stake in Woodside Petroleum did Shell sell in June 2014?

Answer: 9.5%

<hl> Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. <hl> Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

Shell sold <hl> 9.5% <hl> of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

question: What percent of its stake in Woodside Petroleum did Shell sell in June 2014?, context: Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."


Question: Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a takeover attempt was blocked in what year?

Answer: 2001

Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. <hl> Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. <hl> At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a <hl> 2001 <hl> takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

question: Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a takeover attempt was blocked in what year?, context: Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."


Question: Who blocked the takeover attempt?

Answer: then federal Treasurer Peter Costello

Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. <hl> Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. <hl> At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by <hl> then federal Treasurer Peter Costello <hl> and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

question: Who blocked the takeover attempt?, context: Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."


Question: What percentage of shareholders voted to approve the 2014 buy-back?

Answer: 72

Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. <hl> At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. <hl> A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, <hl> 72 <hl> percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

question: What percentage of shareholders voted to approve the 2014 buy-back?, context: Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."


Question: What percentage of shareholder votes was need to approve the 2014 buy-back?

Answer: 75

Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. <hl> At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. <hl> A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the <hl> 75 <hl> percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

question: What percentage of shareholder votes was need to approve the 2014 buy-back?, context: Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."


Question: Shell purchased what in 2005?

Answer: an offshore lease

<hl> Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. <hl> At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

Following the purchase of <hl> an offshore lease <hl> in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

question: Shell purchased what in 2005?, context: Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".


Question: What did Shell initate after its 2005 purchase?

Answer: its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program

<hl> Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. <hl> At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated <hl> its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program <hl> in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

question: What did Shell initate after its 2005 purchase?, context: Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".


Question: What executive initially led the Artic drilling project?

Answer: Pete Slaiby

Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. <hl> At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby , a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. <hl> However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by <hl> Pete Slaiby <hl>, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

At inception, the project was led by <hl> Pete Slaiby <hl> , a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea.

question: What executive initially led the Artic drilling project?, context: Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".


Question: What caused the delay in drilling after Shell's 2008 purchase?

Answer: the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits

Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. <hl> However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits . <hl> The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to <hl> the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits <hl>. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to <hl> the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits <hl> .

question: What caused the delay in drilling after Shell's 2008 purchase?, context: Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".


Question: Shell's plans to drill in the Artic led to protests from which particular environmental group?

Answer: Greenpeace

Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. <hl> The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace ; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations". <hl>

Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly <hl> Greenpeace <hl>; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly <hl> Greenpeace <hl> ; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

question: Shell's plans to drill in the Artic led to protests from which particular environmental group?, context: Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".


Question: What conditions caused the delay of drilling in mid-2012?

Answer: difficult weather

Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. <hl> Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. <hl> Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.

Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, <hl> difficult weather <hl> conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.

question: What conditions caused the delay of drilling in mid-2012?, context: Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.


Question: What worsened the situation at the end of 2012?

Answer: the "Kulluk" incident

Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. <hl> Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. <hl> Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.

Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by <hl> the "Kulluk" incident <hl> at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.

question: What worsened the situation at the end of 2012?, context: Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.


Question: What amount had Royal Dutch Shell invested in the project by the end of 2012?

Answer: nearly US$5 billion

Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. <hl> Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project. <hl>

Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested <hl> nearly US$5 billion <hl> by this stage of the project.

question: What amount had Royal Dutch Shell invested in the project by the end of 2012?, context: Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.


Question: In what year did drilling in the Arctic region begin?

Answer: 2012

<hl> Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012 , as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. <hl> Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.

Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in <hl> 2012 <hl>, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.

Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in <hl> 2012 <hl> , as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment.

question: In what year did drilling in the Arctic region begin?, context: Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.