KEY POINTS
- Clean energy transition is reshaping global oil majors.
- Investor pressure is driving new renewable strategies.
- Clean energy projects highlight the industry’s shifting balance.
1. ExxonMobil explores carbon capture solutions
ExxonMobil spent decades as the emblem of oil’s dominance, often resisting external pressure to embrace renewables. That posture began to soften in the late 2010s when investors, including activist fund Engine No. 1, forced climate questions onto its board. In response, Exxon created its Low Carbon Solutions division in 2022, committing up to $30 billion by 2030 to technologies outside its traditional business.
Instead of chasing solar and wind like some peers, Exxon is steering money toward carbon capture, hydrogen, and advanced biofuels. The strategy reflects the company’s view that decarbonizing heavy industries including steel, cement, and shipping will require more than just electricity.
Projects such as a massive carbon capture hub in Houston and hydrogen developments in Baytown are designed to build on Exxon’s refining expertise while keeping its base business intact. The company has positioned itself as a supplier of large-scale transition tools rather than a direct renewable energy player.
Critics say the pivot remains too slow, but investors have rewarded Exxon’s measured pace. For a company that once dismissed climate action as a costly distraction, the change represents a notable recalibration.
2. Shell
Shell’s clean-energy story is one of bold starts and cautious retreats. After rebranding as Shell Energy Transition in the 2010s, the company invested heavily in offshore wind farms, biofuels, and EV charging. In 2020, it pledged to cut emissions to net zero by mid-century, aiming to allocate as much as 20 percent of capital to renewables.
But investor impatience and thin margins have since pulled Shell back. Today, its Renewables & Energy Solutions budget has shrunk to roughly 8 percent of spending, a fraction of earlier promises.
The most visible retrenchment came this year, when Shell cancelled plans for a major biofuels facility in Rotterdam, citing poor economics. It has also slowed offshore wind expansion and sold assets in solar ventures. Shell argues it is not abandoning clean energy but repositioning, saying low-carbon fuels like biofuels and LNG will deliver faster and steadier returns than volatile renewables.
Executives maintain that electrification alone won’t solve the transition, while liquid fuels remain vital for aviation and shipping. That direction shows how Shell is balancing long-term ambition with near-term investor demands.
3. BP trims promises in clean energy plans
BP once sought to rebrand itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” becoming the first major to pour billions into renewables. By the late 2010s, it ranked among Europe’s most aggressive on climate targets, pledging steep emissions cuts and growing capacity in solar, wind, and EV charging.
But that ambition has now been trimmed. Under shareholder pressure, BP has scaled back more than $5 billion in renewable investments, eased off its earlier oil-production cuts, and leaned again into fossil fuel expansion.
The most visible retreat is in its EV charging business, BP Pulse, where leadership exits and slower rollout plans suggest a reduced appetite. Solar and offshore wind projects have also been pared back. Executives argue the reset is pragmatic: oil and gas remain profitable and demand shows little sign of collapse. Critics, however, see a loss of momentum, warning BP risks undermining the credibility it built as a transition leader.
For now, the company insists it will still deliver 50 gigawatts of renewable capacity by 2030, though the path there looks less direct. The tension between promises and delivery has become the hallmark of BP’s clean-energy strategy.
4. TotalEnergies bets big on renewables
TotalEnergies is the outlier among Europe’s big five. While peers like BP and Shell walk back green investments, TotalEnergies continues to build its renewable portfolio at scale. The French major has spent billions acquiring solar and wind developers, including Germany’s VSB Group for €2 billion. Its target is clear, 100 gigawatts of renewable capacity by 2030, making it one of the largest non-utility renewable players globally.
The company’s strategy rests on balancing growth in oil and gas with aggressive clean energy expansion. In practice, that means continuing to drill in Africa and the Middle East while also developing large solar parks in Spain, India, and the U.S. Unlike rivals who have cooled on solar, TotalEnergies has leaned into it, betting that costs will keep falling and margins will improve.
Chief executive Patrick Pouyanné has framed the approach as an “energy mix,” not a pivot away from hydrocarbons, but its spending patterns show a consistency rare among peers. Investors have so far rewarded that clarity, even as the company faces political scrutiny at home for its fossil fuel projects.
5. Chevron
Chevron has never styled itself as a transition pioneer, but it has steadily layered clean projects onto a fossil-first portfolio. The company is spending nearly $10 billion boosting production in the Permian Basin and Gulf of Mexico, while channeling smaller but targeted sums into renewable diesel, carbon capture, and green hydrogen. In Utah, Chevron is backing one of the largest green hydrogen hubs in the U.S., aimed at supplying trucking and heavy industry.
Its renewables business is modest compared to European peers, but Chevron has consistently pitched pragmatism. Fossil fuels, executives stress, still supply 80 percent of global energy. Instead of chasing unproven wind projects, the company invests where it sees clear crossover with existing operations: low-carbon fuels for transport, CCS at refineries, and methane abatement in shale.
That approach reflects Chevron’s conviction that oil will remain central for decades while cleaner molecules open profitable niches. The strategy has attracted less criticism from U.S. investors, who are more focused on returns than climate branding. Still, environmental groups argue Chevron’s pace lags behind the urgency of the transition.
