Sorry, Rigzone and Telegraph, oil and gas companies wisely reject net zero and renewable energy – Watt Watt?

From the climateRealism

linnea Lukeen

rigzone and this telegraphMany major energy companies are reportedly returning to their net commitments made in recent years, among other media, to shift from renewable energy to oil and gas. This move makes sense, as subsidies for wind and solar dependence can dry up, with traditional sources trumping them.

Rigzone posts “a leading energy company holding a renewable energy commitment,” said BMI, financial information company Fitch Group, which said companies such as BP, Shell and others “block renewable energy commitments to achieve higher short-term returns.”

Most notably, Fitch told the media that Equinor “reduced its low-carbon investment from $10 billion to $5 billion,” BP “wasted its 2030 oil production reduction target and is divesting its onshore wind business in the U.S.” and even Shell “has even weakened its carbon reduction target and invested in Nigeria in Bonga North Deep-Water Deep-Water Propect in Nigeria.”

reason? According to Fitch analysts, Rigzone reports high costs of renewable energy projects, supply chain disruptions and demand for energy security.

Report of report telegraph The BP boss admitted that in “we are wrong in our net nets”, advising hedge fund Elliott management to incentivize BP to give up on the pressure of its focus on Net-Zero because “the company’s stake is partially underperformed, in part because it was wasting too much money on renewable energy.”

All of this is not surprising, especially given that many wind and solar subsidies may soon dry up with the new Trump administration, these companies may see writing on the wall.

Even in terms of massive government subsidies supporting renewable investments, wind companies are struggling. For example, Dominion Energy's coastal Virginia offshore wind project costs $2 billion more than the first proposed development project promised in 2021, and only half of the completions have been reassessed yet another billion in cost. These fees have been transferred to consumers.

Between 2016 and 2022, about 46% of federal subsidies are spent on wind and solar energy. President Trump has stopped offshore wind rental sales and has stopped approval of overland winds. Similarly, new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin is working to “grab” billions of dollars from the Greenhouse Gas Eating Fund, which has invested money into various renewable energy projects and green organizations.

Oil companies will of course get their renewable energy projects and promised funds from these subsidies and funds, and if the cash flow ends, it will be difficult for them to maintain that.

rigzone and telegraph This means that these stripping from renewable energy is a bad thing telegraph Noting that forced “fast energy transition” far outweighs the harms and threatens energy security and reliability.

As Climate Realism For foreign countries, the United States and states have been covered for a long time, energy security is at risk when pursuing the so-called “energy transition.” The premature shutdown of reliable energy sources such as coal, nuclear and natural gas has alerted grid operators and even individuals from the Federal Commission. Renewable energy cannot fill the gap. Furthermore, there is no fact that there is no transition happening globally: Electric power production data show that although wind, biofuels and solar energy are added to the overall mixture, traditional energy is still growing as energy consumption generally increases. (Please refer to the picture below)

Although Rigzone and telegraph Apparently, major oil companies are following up on their net-zero goals and investment in renewable energy, a move that is a boon for consumer and energy security. Reliable, affordable energy benefits people and the country. While reports of these company actions have disturbed climate activists, it is hoped that it will signal other companies and industries that it can safely get rid of climate alerts.