"Shell Management" 
states:
On the matter of certifying to the latest standards, there had been questions within Shell Aircraft's experts over the ‘robustness’ of S92 MRGB certification process. Iin particular that the loss of oil event through filter housing was “extremely unlikely”, implying this this single barrier would be subject to no human error! This was at a time that other S92 MRGB design issues, highlighted by 2 BSP S92 incidents, remained only partially resolved.
Extremely unlikely? What's the definition of that term? Is that an arbitrary term Shell made up? In Chapter 3 of the FAA's System Safety Handbook, they use and define the terms: Probable, Remote, Extremely Remote, Extremely Improbable. Nowhere do we see the term "extremely unlikely" used.
"Shell Management" goes on:
The good news
is that Shell Aircraft's continued engagement with Sikorsky on MRGB improvements has resulted in a return to a safe status
quo and their is no justification for all this infantile scaremongering.
Infantile. Yes, voicing safety concerns over innocent, paying passengers is "infantile."
I guess what you're saying, "Shell Management" is that with the switch in material of the mounting studs, Sikorsky completely eliminated the oil filter housing as a possible source of a leak. Have I got that right?
Because no matter what you make those studs out of - unobtainium for all I care - that mounting pad and seal are still a place where a catastrophic leak can occur. To deny this is...well, to use your own term, infantile. (Not to mention all of the other potential leak sources on that transmission.) The S-92 is surely a very safe helicopter in most respects. Except...except for that dang transmission, which has proven to be
no safer than any other transmission in service. And that transmission is the most important thing on the helicopter when you take people a long way out over a cold, inhospitable ocean. In fact, because of its inability to last more than 10 minutes after a genuine loss of oil, it might be argued that the S-92 is
less safe than a 332 or Merlin.
All you guys who wish to put blinders on and downplay this issue because of the otherwise overwhelming
greatness of the S-92, fine by me. But you know what? I think we owe our passengers a higher duty of care than that.
Your mileage may vary.