LONDON – In a sharp escalation of the multibillion-dollar LNG contract feud, U.S. producer Venture Global on Tuesday fired back at Shell’s allegations of fraud, dismissing them as unsubstantiated while counter-accusing the oil major of violating arbitration confidentiality rules.
The response, filed late in New York Supreme Court, comes amid Shell’s November challenge to its August arbitration loss against Venture Global. Shell, which sought damages for undelivered liquefied natural gas cargoes, claimed Venture Global withheld critical documents about delaying the commercial launch of its Calcasieu Pass plant in Louisiana. Citing a redacted third-party witness, Shell alleged misleading statements by Venture Global’s counsel prevented fair disclosure.
Venture Global rejected the claims outright, stating Shell provided “no evidence” of fraud. The filing emphasized that the third party “did not testify to written communications” with Venture Global, and no misleading conduct occurred. Instead, it accused Shell of breaching International Chamber of Commerce confidentiality by sharing arbitration details with other counterparties, including BP and Edison, to coordinate challenges.
The dispute traces to 2022, when Russia’s Ukraine invasion spiked global LNG prices. Venture Global, accused by Shell, BP, Edison, Galp, and others of selling over 400 spot-market cargoes—netting more than $20 billion—while withholding contracted supplies, faces combined claims exceeding $5.5 billion. Venture Global maintains Calcasieu Pass was in commissioning mode until April 2025 due to technical issues, exempting it from long-term obligations.
Shell’s loss contrasted with BP’s October victory, awarding over $1 billion. Legal experts note Shell’s email to Venture Global sought a commercial settlement, citing BP’s outcome as grounds for concern, but prioritized overturning the ruling on procedural grounds.
Venture Global, buoyant after its Shell win and a Unipec settlement, affirmed sufficient cash reserves to weather ongoing arbitrations. The saga underscores tensions in the LNG market, where spot windfalls clash with long-term contracts. A court decision could reshape industry norms.