It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Monday, September 29, 2025
TotalEnergies to Sell 50% of Its North American Solar Assets
TotalEnergies has agreed to sell 50% of its solar projects portfolio in North America to global investment firm KKR for about $1 billion, as part of the French supermajor’s renewables strategy to divest half of its already operational assets.
TotalEnergies is selling 50% of a portfolio of combined 1.4 gigawatts (GW) installed capacity in a transaction valuing said portfolio at $1.25 billion, the supermajorsaid on Monday.
Thanks to the transactions and the bank refinancing currently being finalized, TotalEnergies will receive a total of $950 million at closing of the sale.
Included in the sale are six utility-scale solar assets with a combined capacity of 1.3 GW, and 41 distributed generation assets totaling 140 MW, primarily situated in the United States. The electricity production of these projects has either been sold to third parties or will be commercialized by TotalEnergies, the French major said.
Unlike other European majors such as BP and Shell, which have outrightreduced spending on renewables, TotalEnergies has a strategy to reach 12% profitability target for its Integrated Power business. This means that TotalEnergies would typically divest up to 50% of its renewable assets once they reach commercial operation date (COD) and are de-risked, which allows it “to maximize asset value and manage risks.”
“Aligned with our strategy, this transaction unlocks value from newly commissioned assets and further strengthens the profitability of our Integrated Power business,” said Stéphane Michel, President of Gas, Renewables & Power at TotalEnergies.
In the United States, solar projects could see significant slowdown going forward, due to the Trump Administration’s policies, the industrywarned earlier this month.
In areport hailing the installation of close to 18 GW in new capacity—including battery storage—over the first half of the year, which constituted 82% of all new capacity additions, the Solar Energy Industries Association also warned that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has substantially changed the medium-term outlook.
The U.S. solar industry risks losing 44 GW in new capacity additions by 2030 as a result of the current Administration’s policies, SEIA said.
President Trump has signed orders to keep ageing coal plants online, despite utilities warning of high operating costs.
Energy experts argue that the Department of Energy’s blackout risk report exaggerates threats while downplaying new renewable capacity.
Keeping coal plants open has already led to rising electricity bills, with consumers in states like Georgia and South Carolina paying the price.
While much of the world is looking to phase out its coal production, United States President Donald Trump has put coal back on the energy agenda, with big plans to reinvigorate ageing coal facilities. Despite concerns over the impact of ongoing coal use on human health and the environment, Trump views fossil fuels as the most stable energy source to boost U.S. energy security, which could lead to consumers paying more for their energy bills over the coming years.
Upon entering office in January, Trump declared an energy emergency, and he has since worked rapidly to change the landscape of U.S. energy by signing a flurry of executive orders and passing bills aimed at reducing the growth of the renewable energy sector and, instead, returning to a reliance on fossil fuels. In April, Trump signed an order entitled “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241”.
In the order, Trump stated, “Coal is abundant and cost-effective, and can be used in any weather condition. Moreover, the industry has historically employed hundreds of thousands of Americans. America’s coal resources are vast, with a current estimated value in the trillions of dollars, and are more than capable of substantially contributing to American energy independence, with excess to export to support allies and our economic competitiveness.”
Despite promises to lower consumer energy bills in the coming years, sectoral experts now believe that doubling down on coal production could actually lead to an increase in consumer energy bills, compared to investing in alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power. Trump’s executive order tasked the Department of Energy (DoE) with ensuring that coal power plants continue to operate, even those that are destined for closure.
In July, the DoE published a report that states that current power plant retirements and additions will put the U.S. at massive risk of blackouts by the end of the decade. It has used its newly given powers to stop the closure of the J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan, even though the utility operating the plant warned that closing the facility would save consumers over $600 million. The DoE plans to halt the closure of other coal facilities across the country in line with Trump’s energy aims.
However, several energy experts have said that the report relies on worst-case scenarios to reach its conclusions and largely overlooks the new renewable energy capacity being added to the grid. Experts argue that paying to keep ageing coal plants online could result in consumers paying billions of dollars more for some of the least efficient and least reliable power plants on the grid, as well as put their health and the environment at risk.
A report from June, by the think tank Energy Innovation, showed that coal power was 28 percent more expensive in 2024 than in 2021, following several years of movement away from the “dirtiest fossil fuel” to various other less-polluting energy sources. The analysis shows that 95 percent of the 162 U.S. coal-fired power plants that were still operating at the beginning of the year were more expensive than in 2021, with costs increasing at twice the rate of inflation for half of these plants.
It's not just climate scientists who are concerned about the financial and environmental cost of keeping coal plants running, as one may have expected. Several U.S. utilities have found that the operating costs of coal plants are simply too high, particularly compared to gas-fueled facilities and renewables. Several utilities have chosen only to use coal plants for power as a last resort, when they cannot deliver enough solar or wind power to the grid, for example, due to the high cost of production. Experts believe that keeping more ageing coal plants online would inflate consumer costs further.
Most of the coal plants in the U.S. are old and inefficient, with the average age of a coal plant standing at 44 years in 2024. Older plants tend to be more expensive to run because they need more investment in maintenance. The generating power at these plants also falls over time, making them highly inefficient compared to many other energy sources. And consumers are seeing the effects of keeping these facilities online unnecessarily.
In Georgia, Plant Bowen was expected to be retried in 2028. However, Georgia Power has extended its life to 2035, even as costs rose from $46/MWh in 2021 to $72/MWh in 2025. This also follows six electricity bill increases for Georgia Power customers between 2023 and 2025. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, the Williams Station coal plant has had its retirement date delayed from 2028 to at least 2031, as costs have increased by $27/MWh, or more than 50 percent.
So, while President Trump insists that fossil fuels, including coal, will help fix the country’s “energy emergency”, the financial reports at many of these coal plants appear to prove otherwise. Meanwhile, the cost of gas and renewable energy production continues to fall, offering a cleaner alternative for consumers, as well as lower energy bills.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
China's Quiet Diplomacy Reopens Key EU Trade Route
Poland has reopened its border with Belarus after a nearly two-week closure that was implemented to counter security risks and migration pressure during the Zapad-2025 joint military exercises.
China played a crucial, albeit quiet, role in the decision to reopen the border, prioritizing the protection of its trade flows through the Poland-Belarus frontier, a main artery of the Belt and Road Initiative.
The reopening follows a period of heightened tensions and a humanitarian crisis at the border, with Poland accusing Belarus of weaponizing migration to destabilize the EU, a strategy backed by Moscow.
Poland has reopened its border with Belarus after a nearly two-week closure tied to the Zapad-2025 joint military exercises held by Russia and Belarus, with Beijing playing a quiet but crucial role in the decision.
Within the first few minutes of September 25, passenger vehicles resumed crossing at Terespol–Brest and trucks at Kukuryki–Kazlovichy, while freight rail reopened via Kuznica Bialostocka–Hrodna, Siemianowka–Svislach, and Terespol–Brest. The move followed an order by Polish Interior Minister Marcin Kierwinski that was announced by Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
The border was closed since 12 September with the aim of countering security risks and migration pressure.
Since 2021, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia have accused Belarus of weaponizing migration by luring people from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia with tourist visas and pushing them toward EU borders.
Warsaw has labeled this a hybrid operation by Aleksdandr Lukashenko's regime in Belarus, backed by Moscow, to destabilize the EU. The strategy created a humanitarian crisis, with migrants trapped for weeks in border forests and dozens confirmed dead from exposure.
Data show irregular crossing attempts fell in early September, spiked during the Zapad drills to 687, and eased to 663 last week. Between September 20 and 23, 282 attempts were registered.
China's Trade Route To The EU
China's involvement in reopening the border is key. On September 16, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Warsaw. Sikorski said Poland hoped Beijing would again help restrain "Belarusian provocations," recalling how a 2024 meeting between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Polish President Andrzej Duda coincided with a temporary drop in crossings.
Analysts say China's priority is not political alignment but protecting trade flows. The Poland–Belarus frontier is a main artery of the Belt and Road Initiative, carrying goods from China to the EU. Disruption threatens delivery schedules and undermines Beijing's claim that Eurasian rail is a reliable alternative to sea routes.
"China wants to avoid blame and keep goods moving," Temur Umarov, a Carnegie Endowment fellow researcher, told RFE/RL. "Its focus is economic stability and showing that Belt and Road works."
Whether Beijing's behind-the-scenes diplomacy has worked will be tested soon: Only a sustained decline in migration numbers will confirm whether Minsk has eased pressure on the border under Chinese influence.
Oil production in Trinidad and Tobago has collapsed from nearly 278,000 bpd in the 1970s to under 54,000 bpd today, with declining revenues pushing diversification efforts.
Exxon has returned after 20 years, betting on deepwater prospects, but interest from other majors remains weak compared to Guyana’s booming oil sector.
The government faces mounting pressure to balance exploration, environmental concerns, and the push toward green hydrogen and wider economic diversification.
For decades, Trinidad and Tobago has relied on oil production to bring in revenue to the small Caribbean state. However, as its oil reserves begin to dwindle, the outlook is less certain, despite ongoing investment in new auctions for further exploration. The country is now at a crossroads, as the government decides whether to support more invasive exploration practices or to shift to alternative energy sources and pursue economic diversification.
In recent years, the neighbouring South American state of Guyana has attracted attention from oil majors worldwide looking to invest in exploration and production activities in the new oil region, where its vast reserves are largely untapped. This has also drawn attention to Trinidad and Tobago, as oil firms hope that similar reserves may still be found through more invasive exploration activities.
Trinidad and Tobago has long been the largest oil and natural gas producer in the Caribbean and is the 17th-biggest natural gas producer worldwide. The small Caribbean country is home to one of the Western Hemisphere’s largest natural gas processing facilities – the Phoenix Park Gas Processors Limited, with a processing capacity of almost 2 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d). Trinidad and Tobago’s upstream oil and gas market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 4.4 percent between 2020 and 2030, according to Mordor Intelligence, with giant oil firms such as BP, Repsol, and Shell continuing to operate in the country.
However, following the introduction of sanctions on neighbouring oil giant Venezuela by the United States, Trinidad and Tobago’s oil industry has also suffered. In April, the U.S. government’s Office of Foreign Assets Control decided to revoke two special licenses for the Dragon and Cocuina gas fields in the maritime boundary between Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago, with Trump stating plans to further restrict Venezuelan oil production.
In September, an auction of Trinidad and Tobago’s deepwater oil and gas exploration and production blocks did not attract much interest from foreign investors, which saw bids submitted on only four of the 26 areas on offer. China’s CNOOC bid on three areas, while a consortium of smaller energy firms bid on another block. With few deepwater energy players in the region, the government has instead been encouraging producers to increase natural gas output to allow it to boost its gas processing capacity and exports.
Trinidad and Tobago has a separate agreement with American oil major Exxon Mobil to explore an area equivalent to seven ultra-deepwater blocks, which is expected to bring as much as $21.7 billion to the country if reserves are found. This marks Exxon’s return to the country after a 20-year hiatus, having left Trinidad and Tobago in 2003 after an unsuccessful offshore exploration. Exxon has conducted successful exploration and production operations in Guyana’s Stabroek block in recent years, which appear to have made the oil major reconsider Trinidad and Tobago’s potential. Guyana has become the fifth-largest oil exporter in Latin America in less than a decade, with output growing from 400,000 bpd to over 660,000 bpd in just a few months.
At present, Trinidad and Tobago does not have any production from its deepwater acreage. However, BP and Shell recently completed seismic work at three deepwater blocks in the region, and Woodside Energy said it is considering the development of its Calypso gas discovery.
Trinidad and Tobago’s oil production has fallen to less than 54,000 bpd, from over 278,000 bpd of crude oil at its peak in the 1970s. Its only petroleum refinery closed in 2018, due to years of mismanagement and a significant fall in production by the state-owned company Petrotrin. A recent report suggests that the country’s energy revenues fell by 48.4 percent to $14.7 billion in the last fiscal year, in which its non-energy revenues increased by 26 percent to $32.7 billion, suggesting greater economic diversification.
Trinidad and Tobago established its Heritage and Stabilisation Fund in 2007, aimed at enhancing economic diversification using its oil wealth to ensure long-term economic security. However, the significant drop in oil revenues in recent years has made the fund far less successful than other oil funds, such as those of Norway and the UAE. In 2022, the government launched a green hydrogen strategy, aimed at diversifying and adding value to the country’s energy sector; however, this is in the nascent stage of development.
It is uncertain what Trinidad and Tobago will do to ensure the future of its economic stability while also considering the viability of new, uncertain oil development. A 2019 report by a U.S. consultancy estimated there were 10 years of gas reserves left. While new investment in deepwater exploration could potentially boost this figure, there are no guarantees, and the environmental implications are big. However, only greater economic diversification will alleviate the pressure for the government to continue drilling, which is all the harder to achieve without the oil revenues needed to finance emerging industries.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
GREENWASHING
Why Advertisers Are Returning to Big Oil Despite Net-Zero Pledges
Advertising firms are following banks in retreating from net-zero commitments, prioritizing business with Big Oil.
Financial realities and AI disruption are pushing agencies to secure reliable, high-paying clients in the energy sector.
The shift highlights a growing gap between climate pledges and industry survival strategies.
Like financial services, advertising and marketing have been at the forefront of the net-zero push, making emission reduction commitments and demonstrating a readiness to pressure the energy industry to decarbonize. Also, like financial services, ad and marketing firms are backpedaling from net zero and eager to get Big Oil’s business.
The Financial Times reported this week that advertisers are going the way of bankers in rephrasing their decarbonization messaging on websites and rediscovering the energy industry as a client - a well-paying one. The standard go-to explanation is, of course, President Trump and his anti-net-zero rhetoric and policies. Yet it seems that a much bigger reason for the pullback is simply money. Like banks before them, advertisers and marketers are discovering that the energy industry makes money and doesn’t mind paying generously for advertising.
The FT cited data from a climate campaign organization called Clean Creatives showing that advertising and PR agencies had boosted the number of contracts with their energy industry clients over the past 12 months. The trend strongly suggests a developing realization that net-zero campaigning is all very well, but it does not really pay the bills. Had it been otherwise, the ad industry—and bankers—would have stopped doing any business with Big Oil.
What actually happened was that banks started pulling out of net-zero organizations. It is a fact that the Trump administration had a lot to do with it, as did Republican state governments before Trump became president. The saga began back in 2022, when Texas passed legislation forbidding state agencies from investing in any of a number of companies that, the state’s government said, boycotted the oil and gas industry. The black list of such companies included many Wall Street heavyweights eager to get a piece of the energy transition business.
Other states also slammed banks and asset managers for their newfound investment pickiness and took measures similar to Texas. Banks and asset managers rushed to defend themselves—even as they continued insisting on their net-zero commitments that inevitably involved a reduction and a following exit from oil and gas. Only it never came to that.
The “reality is that for quite some time, fossil fuels will be with us,” the chief executive of Barclays told Bloomberg last year, even though the bank had made a pledge to completely suspend financing for oil and gas projects—but only new ones. The financial industry, CS Venkatakrishnan said at the time, “cannot go cold turkey” on hydrocarbons.
The pushback against what banks called sustainable investing did a lot to change their perspective on the energy transition—and their fiduciary duty, which is to make money for their clients, not force them to cut their emissions. Now, advertisers are following the same path for pretty much the same reasons. Banks have discovered that investments in emission-reduction, carbon credits, and what transition proponents call climate tech do not pay as well as expected and, indeed, in some cases, it does not pay at all. Now, advertisers are discovering that artificial intelligence is encroaching on their territory and they need paying clients.
According to the FT report—and the Clean Creatives outlet—the ad industry’s rediscovery of the importance of making money has led to a change in marketing messaging for the energy industry that, the report implies, is inconsistent with net zero efforts. “Marketing spend is shifting towards making them seem [oil and gas] inevitable and vital,” the executive director of Duncan Meisel told the FT.
It is a fact that net-zero pundits resent the notion that oil and gas are indeed inevitable and vital for modern human civilization. In fact, some of those pundits acknowledge this, especially those involved in electricity generation. Every winter, the northern hemisphere gets a reminder of just how indispensable hydrocarbons are for securing power and heating once the wind dies down and the sun moves past its peak power generation period.
Ultimately, however, it is about survival. “Advertising is struggling — so all business is being considered,” one industry insider told the Financial Times. AI is turning into a substantial challenge for advertisers and marketers, threatening to render the industry unnecessary. “AI is going to make all the world’s expertise available to everybody at extremely low cost,” Mark Read, the former head of WPP, said earlier this year. “The best lawyer, the best psychologist, the best radiologist, the best accountant, and indeed, the best advertising creatives and marketing people often will be an AI, you know, will be driven by AI.”
In response to that challenge, the ad industry is, first, finding ways to use AI itself, and, two, securing all the business it can secure to ensure its longer-term survival. It so happens that oil and gas majors have the money, and companies such as Ørsted don’t have the money, because oil and gas are indeed inevitable and vital and will remain so until such energy technology is developed that has all the pros of hydrocarbons with none of their drawbacks.
By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com
BP Invests in New $5 Billion U.S. Gulf Oil Project
BP has reached the final investment decision on its estimated $5 billion Tiber-Guadalupe project in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, as part of its strategy to grow upstream production and boost its U.S. output to more than 1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2030.
Tiber-Guadalupe, 100%-owned by the UK-based supermajor, will be BP’s seventh operated oil and gas production hub in the Gulf of America, featuring a new floating production platform with the capacity to produce 80,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
Production from the project is expected to start in 2030 and is one of the 8-10 major projects that BP plans to start up globally between 2028 and 2030.
The estimated $5 billion Tiber-Guadalupe project is fully accommodated within BP prudent financial framework, which the supermajor geared toward the upstream business earlier this year in a major strategy reset to slash investments in renewables and focus on its core business of producing oil and gas.
Under the new strategy, BP will aim for 10 new major upstream projects to start up by the end of 2027, and a further 8–10 projects by the end of 2030. Production is also expected to grow to 2.3–2.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boed) in 2030, with capacity to increase to 2035.
In the United States, together with its 100%-owned Kaskida project, BP expects to invest around $10 billion to deliver its Gulf of America Paleogene projects.
Tiber-Guadalupe and Kaskida will help BP to boost its capacity to produce more than 400,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) from the U.S. offshore region by 2030. The major aims to increase its offshore and onshore production in the United States to more than 1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2030.
“Along with its sister project Kaskida, Tiber-Guadalupe will play a critical role in bp’s focus on delivering secure and reliable energy the world needs today and tomorrow,” said Andy Krieger, BP’s senior vice president, Gulf of America and Canada.
Just last week, BP said that global oil demand is set to rise through 2030 amid weaker-than-expected efficiency gains. In its 2025 Energy Outlook, BP ditched its forecast from last year that oil demand could peak as soon as this year.
Porsche AG's shares fell almost 10% after the company scaled back its electric-vehicle ambitions, leading to a €1.8 billion hit to operating profit and its fourth profit warning this year.
The carmaker has scrapped plans for a battery-powered luxury SUV and will instead expand its lineup of combustion-engine and hybrid cars, reflecting a wider struggle in the German auto sector with weak demand for luxury EVs, especially in China.
The crisis has led to calls for CEO Oliver Blume, who leads both Porsche and Volkswagen, to step aside from his role at Porsche as both companies cut their earnings outlooks and restructure to cut costs.
Porsche AG shares fell almost 10% last week—the steepest drop since its 2022 debut—after the carmaker scaled back its electric-vehicle ambitions. The stock is down nearly 30% this year and will fall out of Germany’s benchmark DAX index. Parent company Volkswagen also slid 8.4%, its sharpest drop in more than two years, according to Bloomberg.
The 911 maker scrapped plans for a battery-powered luxury SUV and will instead expand its lineup of combustion-engine and hybrid cars. The shift triggered a €1.8 billion hit to operating profit, Porsche’s fourth profit warning this year, and pushed both Porsche and VW to cut their earnings outlooks. VW also flagged a €3 billion impairment tied to the move, lowering its forecast for operating return on sales to just 2% to 3%, down from as much as 5%.
Bloomberg writes that auto buyers “are putting little value on luxury electric cars,” said Matthias Schmidt, an independent analyst near Hamburg. “Porsche has now realized this and is jumping back into high-margin combustion-engine models.”
The setback underscores the wider struggles of Germany’s auto sector. Porsche faces weak demand in China, where local champion BYD dominates EVs, and has been hit hard by U.S. tariffs in its largest market. Luxury spending is muted, and analysts say Porsche has disappointed investors since its blockbuster listing. “Porsche has now been disappointing investors for over two years,” Citi’s Harald Hendrikse wrote. “It is hard to conclude that these disappointments have now completed.”
Volkswagen, once an EV frontrunner, is also scaling back battery plans and restructuring to cut costs. While VW outsold Tesla, Stellantis and BYD in Europe this year with several affordable EVs, its premium brands—Audi, Bentley, Lamborghini and Ducati—have weakened, with shipments falling across major markets.
Porsche has already replaced executives, scrapped its in-house battery program, and announced job cuts to reduce costs. But the crisis is fueling calls for CEO Oliver Blume—who leads both Porsche and VW—to step aside from running Porsche so a new leader can attempt a turnaround.
