The number in your claim appears to come from a 2014 report by a "subsidy tracking group" called Good Jobs First, quoted in an article in "cheatsheet.com" about corporate welfare recipients. They said:

Shell received $2.04 billion across 79 subsidies

That looks like a "yes", but something crucial to keep in mind when you read about this issue, whether my answer or anywhere else: the answer to your question depends on your definition of "subsidy". Do you include tax breaks? Exemption from price controls or allowed rates of return? Exemption from paying royalties for using federal lands?

People trying to justify these subsidies answer "no" to most of those questions. People outraged by them answer "yes". What's the right answer? I don't know, but be aware that definitions control the debate.

The number in your claim appears to come from a 2014 report by a "subsidy tracking group" called Good Jobs First, quoted in an article in "cheatsheet.com" about corporate welfare recipients. They said:

Shell received $2.04 billion across 79 subsidies

But they did not say "per year". It seems to be a total.

Something crucial to keep in mind when you read about this issue, whether my answer or anywhere else: the answer to your question depends on your definition of "subsidy". Do you include tax breaks? Exemption from price controls or allowed rates of return? Exemption from paying royalties for using federal lands?

People trying to justify these subsidies answer "no" to most of those questions. People outraged by them answer "yes". What's the right answer? I don't know, but be aware that definitions control the debate.