The oil and gas majors are phasing down their renewable strategies. What does it mean for climate goals?

Interchange Recharged

In February this year BP announced it was cutting its investment in green energy ventures from $5B to $2B while reallocating $10B to fossil fuels, and abandoning its 2030 oil output reduction target. Shell has also scrapped its planned 20% carbon reduction cut for 2030. It’s not a good display of intent from the perspective of the energy transition. In a highly volatile and uncertain policy environment it’s troubling for investors and clean energy developers. The prioritisation of short-term profit at the expense of long-term climate impact has many implications.

To find out, host Sylvia Leyva Martinez is joined by private investor Ben Dell, Managing Partner at Kimmeridge. He says that while “everyone wants low-cost energy on demand with a minimal carbon footprint, every dollar invested has to be cost-competitive. Philanthropy is not an investing strategy.” What does that mean in the context of clean energy deployment?

Plus, Wood Mac analyst Tom Ellacott joins the show to look at the outlook for oil and gas in light of the news from the majors. As he sees it, gas is a growth fuel for the next 20 - 30 years and the most optimal power delivery system is still renewables paired with small-scale batteries and natural gas. So why are major energy providers flip-flopping with their strategies when this is widely accepted?

The key questions are: how are oil and gas majors adjusting their capital allocation between fossil fuels and renewables? What’s the role of natural gas in the transition? And how should investors navigate volatility and uncertainty in energy markets? You’ll get the answers here.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.