• 3 minutes e-car sales collapse
  • 6 minutes America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide
  • 11 minutes Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
  • 4 days They pay YOU to TAKE Natural Gas
  • 16 hours How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
  • 20 hours What fool thought this was a good idea...
  • 4 days Why does this keep coming up? (The Renewable Energy Land Rush Could Threaten Food Security)
  • 10 days The United States produced more crude oil than any nation, at any time.
Andrew Topf

Andrew Topf

With over a decade of journalistic experience working in newspapers, trade publications and as a mining reporter, Andrew Topf is a seasoned business writer. Andrew also…

More Info

Premium Content

Big Oil And Renewables: Not So Strange Bedfellows

Big Oil And Renewables: Not So Strange Bedfellows

In most conversations about energy, the topic of Big Oil versus renewables usually becomes a zero-sum game. Renewable advocates accuse Big Oil of conspiring to shut out wind, solar and other alt-energy sources in the pursuit of greater profits driven by fossil fuels. Big Oil defenders say that renewables, while an important adjunct, can never meet the global demand for energy provided by traditional sources: coal, oil and gas.

In fact, the big oil companies have never shunned renewable energy in their mix of business operations, and only recently have pulled back investments in solar and wind. But the reasons for that have less to do with conspiracies to rule the world through a fossil-fuel economy than plain old economics.

Dabbling in renewables

Big Oil first started dabbling in renewable energy after the 1970s oil shock, when Western governments started offering incentives and subsidies in a bid to become less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The oil patch embarked on a wave of renewable energy ventures, including solar, wind and geothermal, with the most notable being Chevron, which made two major geothermal discoveries in the Philippines and eventually became the world's largest private producer of geothermal power.

Related: Innovation Needed To Provide Zero-Carbon Destination For Gas

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, as momentum gathered for a global climate change agreement, Big Oil embarked on a second wave of interest in renewable energy. Shell and BP were among the oil companies that invested in solar and wind.

In 2004, Shell Solar GmbH had the world's largest solar plant in Espenhain, Germany. Five years later, however, with the onset of the global recession, industrialized countries failed to match climate-change rhetoric with action, and many of these renewable ventures were sold off or shuttered. Shell exited its solar business in 2009 to focus on biofuels, and is now the world's leading vendor.

Other companies followed suit, including BP, which last year sold its $3.1 billion wind energy business, and Chevron, which earlier this year sold the business unit that builds small solar and landfill-gas systems. The sale came despite the unit earning a 2013 profit of $27 million, compared to Chevron's total earnings of $21.4 billion, according to Bloomberg.

Protecting the bottom line

Big Oil critics acknowledge that there has been some effort by these companies to diversify into renewables, but argue that these investments have never come close to moving away from their core business.

A 2013 article in Rolling Stone pointed out that none of the big oil companies have ever invested more than 10 percent of their business operations in renewables, even in the heyday of the early 1980s. The article accuses oil companies of being evasive in their reporting of money spent on alternative energy, and at worst, of "greenwashing." PR campaigns like BP's "Beyond Petroleum" and Shell's "Let's Go," hyping the company's efforts to broaden the world's energy mix, are cited as the worst offenders.

It's easy to conclude that Big Oil's foray into green energy is pure marketing, but a reaction to an article in Forbes shows there may be harder numbers at play. Forbes contributor Loren Steffy says that while the energy companies with the deepest pockets are indeed paring their investments in renewables to focus more on fossil fuels, it's not due to any "nefarious purpose" on the part of oil companies.

"Like all companies, oil companies exist to make money," Steffy writes. "Many plowed millions of dollars into alternative energy programs during the past decade, but those investments have generated little, if any return. Meanwhile, hydraulic fracturing has unleashed huge potential profits from oil fields in the U.S. -- properties that come with far less risk than drilling in other parts of the world." Steffy also points out that BP's decision to sell its wind business was less about reneging on its commitment to alternative energy than needing to raise funds to pay the legal costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

There could be other practical reasons why Big Oil and renewables just don't match very well. In a recent Motley Fool article, contributor Travis Houim makes the point that "Big oil isn't nimble enough to be in the technology of renewable energy," using the example of Total buying a majority stake in SunPower. "Instead, that will be left to smaller, more focused companies, and big oil may play in the market by buying projects, which doesn't come with the same upside for investors."

A renewed courtship?

Ironically, some promising models of how Big Oil and renewables could once again join forces come from the Pembina Institute, one of the most strident critics of Big Oil.

Related: Is Fusion Power Closer Than We Thought?


Pembina's research found that there are challenging economics to Big Oil-renewable collaborations. Those include low natural gas prices relative to renewables, the comparatively low rates of return for renewable power projects, and the lack of political effort to advance climate change, including the absence of a meaningful price on carbon.

However, the institute found that renewables can work in oil and gas operations particularly when they are cost-effective against expensive diesel fuel or propane. Applications could include: small-scale solar systems in remote oil and gas locations used to power machinery like compressors and pumps; offshore oil platforms powered by solar and wind; recovering geothermal energy accessible from oil and gas wells; and using solar for enhanced oil recovery.

Like any good marriage, keeping the relationship strong requires work, commitment and shared values. While Big Oil and renewables have seen an on-again off-again courtship, there appears to be hope in reconstituting the relationship if it can be viewed less as a zero-sum game than one that could flourish if there are enough mutual benefits to be gained.  

By Andrew Topf of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Henry Hewitt on October 23 2014 said:
    The oil majors should finance rooftop PV for a very simple reason: electricity is going to take away their miles. EVs cost 3 cents per mile v about 15 to 20 cents for conventional ICEs. Even at 20 cents per solar kWh, EVs are cheaper (6 cents per mile) and will inevitably take away Exxon and Chevron's business which is, after all, to get cars to move.
  • don on October 23 2014 said:
    The only reason big oil has dabbled in uneconomical alternate energy sources is because of captured regulatory agencies--ostensibly there to protect the consumers's interests-- imposing a green political agenda for "clean energy" subsidized by taxpayers who will also pay the higher energy costs. As long as it didn't cost big oil an arm and a leg to humor the regulatory agencies to get a decent return on their costs the theatre continues, but it remains to be be seen if such economic nonsense will continue when consumers rebel.
  • John Scior on October 24 2014 said:
    Decisions on what energy resource is to be utilized are made on money. Is it any wonder that "Big Oil" would start to invest in renewables when the political climate leans toward punishing fossil fuel providers ? Is it a mystery that they would want to divest themselves from this investment when the political winds change and cheaper more inexpensive means of energy become more of a concern than global warming ? The main factor is money and who bears the cost. As long as the external costs associated with burning fossil fuels is born by the world at large in the form of carbon emissions, then burning fossil fuels will always make more economic sense. Also the vast infrastructure that has already been invested in as far as fuel delivery gives oil based fuel a big advantage. Oil will always exist. It will one day become more economically advantageous to exploit other resources and when that day comes, oil will only be used as a lubricant or for specialty purposes.

Leave a comment

EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News