Confidential 1

March 15-18th meeting

The Woodlands, Texas

International Gas Union Study Group 3:

ELBA LNG – From Import to Export Facility

2

CAUTIONARY NOTE

The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this [report] “Shell”, “Shell group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refer to companies over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. Entities and unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint control are generally referred to “joint ventures” and “joint operations” respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control are referred to as “associates”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in a venture, partnership or company, after exclusion of all third-party interest.

This presentation contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’, ‘‘plan’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘risks’’, “schedule”, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘should’’, ‘‘target’’, ‘‘will’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell’s 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward looking statements contained in this presentation and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this March 15, 2016 presentation. Neither Royal Dutch Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this [report].

We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this [report] that United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

Agenda

From LNG import to export for US/Canada; a short history

US (pipeline) gas quality

Converting LNG import terminal to export – First done in industry w/ US Projects

US Regulatory code/standard implications

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

Maturity and Excess of US Natural Gas

Low gas price since 2009 (shale gas growth)

Extensive pipeline network; Easy access for gas for LNG import and export

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

2006: Many existing/planned; ALL as import terminals

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

2014: Large amount of export (construction; awaiting approval) Note: some planned LNG export locations are not shown

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

US Pipeline Gas Quality Low heating value; no significant change in last 2-3 years with gas plants still removing LPG’s even w/ lower LPG price

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

1040

1050

1060

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

btu/

scf

Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers

Texas

Louisiana

Pennsylvania

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

Project Overview - Elba Island Quick Facts

Elba Island is ~7 miles from downtown Savannah, GA Regas terminal 100% owned and operated by KM (Southern LNG) Reactivated in October 2001 with expansions in 2006 and 2010 Total Capacity: 11.4 mtpa Terminal is connected to the Elba Express Pipeline also owned and operated by KM

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

Project Overview – Elba LNG

Based on Modular Moveable LNG System (MMLS) technology —10 Units - 2.5 mtpa LNG Export

— Build at vendor shop before regulatory Approval to Construct (ATC)

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

Current Scope Overview

LNG

To LNG/MR impoundments,

stormwater basins, and CPI

Firewater

iC5 Storage

C3 Storage

Reverse Osmosis

Demin and Degasser

Skid

Acid Gas Thermal

Oxidizers

Fuel gas

High Pressure

Header

Low Pressure

Header

Waste Water

Stabilized Condensate

Existing

LNG Tanks

Amine

Heat medium Potable water

NEW Added Instrument Air System

Common Pipe-Rack

Rental Nitrogen

Generation

Feed gas

Separate High and Low Temp Flares and KO Drums

Fuel gas

To fuel

Fuel gas

C2= Storage

Mixed Refrigerant

Storage

Power Import

New Control Room

Boil Off Gas Compressors

LNG Pumps

Dem

in Water to

amine treaters

Debut Vent Gas

Excess BOG to MMLS or

spare pipeline

Normally no flow

x2

x3

x2

To MR impoundment

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

ISBL: MMLS Technology (10 Units)

Converting Import Terminal to Export – Surge Overpressure Study

— Mitigations to prevent surge overpressure for export:

— Add surge drum with very large trip valve , or

— Upgrade flange class, or

— Loading pump shutdown w/ PERC activation

Import Export

Dock piping to/from on-shore tank

150# class 300# class (if greenfield)

Surge Volume and Overpressure

Small (PERC valve is close to ship)

Large (PERC valve is far from pumps at tank)

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

Converting Import Terminal to Export

Import Export Issue/Mitigation

Dock piping codes & standards

Check valve to prevent backflow to ship

No check valve requirements

• Remove check valve • If maintain import needs, large

bypass piping may be space limited

• Vendors have de-featable check valve (w/ sensor) to allow export

Emergency Dock and Tank Shutdown

Proper shutdown systems

Proper shutdown systems

• Need integration of export EDS to import’s.

• If maintain import capability, “switch” to allow proper activation for import mode or export mode

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

Converting Import Terminal to Export

Import Export Issue/Mitigation LNG pumps Small (for

vaporizer feed) Large (+10,000 m3/hr LNGC needs) for ship loading

Added pumps

LNG tank nozzles w/ external pumps

Flow design limit basis low feed to vaporizer feed pumps

Flow needs to ship loading pumps are above tank nozzle design

• Upgrade/add nozzles for higher design flow

• Suction from multiple tanks

BOG Generation Small Large (higher LNG rates)

Potential added BOG compressor(s) and dock-to-BOG piping upsize

Nitrogen in BOG Low (boils off on shipment)

Possibly high - higher BOG rates

• Meet 1% max export spec • Build up if low fuel gas

consumption • Potential added equipment (End

Flash, BOG N2 separation) Copyright of Shell Oil Company

US Regulatory Code/Standard Implications

General US Regulatory Challenges for Export LNG

—FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has overall jurisdiction over other agencies (DOT, EPA, etc.). Focus on safety impact to the public.

—LNG to Free Trade Agreement (FTA) nations: approval per Department of Energy —Typically a given and done early (2 month process; ~Early Select phase)

—LNG to non-FTA countries: per DOE approval; —Highly contested and after FERC Order (right before Approval to Construct, ATC). +2 years.

—Potential large impacts to economics due to LNG destination price.

—Regulatory approval duration: —FERC filing to ATC time about 2.5 years for export vs 1.5 years for import. For all US projects.

—Reasons: higher complexity of design & higher safety risks and emissions; overload of FERC; FERC high level of detail on reviews

—FEED/EPC contractors lack understanding of FERC deliverables: need for specialty contractors

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

US Regulatory Code/Standard Implications Import to Export

Import Export Vapor Cloud Explosion Risk

Relatively Low: • Slow LNG vapor flame front

Higher: • LPG streams such as refrigerant and

condensate; • Impact to separation distances

Air Emissions Low/Medium: • Mostly from vaporizer firing

Higher: • Fugitive Emissions w/ higher design

complexity • CO2 w/ acid gas

Stormwater & Impoundment

Simple: • Lack of large volume of

chemicals & heavy hydrocarbons

Complex: • Volumes of amine and heavier

hydrocarbons • Possible storm water treatment and

segregation needs • Requires larger LNG impoundment

basins

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

US Regulatory Code/Standard Implications; Added vs Outside US

US Non US

LNG and Refrigerant Impoundment Trenches and Basins

Required by code (NFPA 59). Collection areas under all LNG/refrigerant equipment including piping

Generally, not required

Habitable Zone Outside of 50% Lower Flammability Limit (LFL)

Generally less stringent

Vapor Explosion/Blast & Thermal Radiation Modeling

FERC requires “event/scenario based” or “deterministic” approach

More so a QRA (qualitative) approach

Copyright of Shell Oil Company

Summarizing

Change in business environment can change the landscape dramatically in relatively short time.

Conversion from Import to Export more involved than initially thought.

Conversion has inherent constraints in plot layout, size and safety distances requirements. —Flexible applications requires upfront thinking which can easily mitigate some of the

challenges

Permitting and regulatory requirements

Public acceptance of Export vs Import and implications on environment

Copyright of Shell Oil Company