At first sight it appears rather strange that, after making enormous profits (first quarter figures of £4bn) largely due to the rocketing cost of a barrel of oil (now $120), Shell is seemingly moving out of renewables, including the London Array wind farm off the Kent coast (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/01/royaldutchshell.oil). They are also apparently divesting themselves of many of their solar power interests. One would initially think that greater profits would give a major energy company more scope to show an increased drive to get a foot-hold in alternatives as insurance for the time when the wells actually run dry. It appears, however, that the very price of crude (largely driven by increased demand from China and India) is encouraging the producers to invest more in what were once thought to be marginally economic sources of the black stuff. Shell is said to be putting more of its money in the oil-rich tar sands of Canada. The company states that the proposed wind farm currently looks less profitable because of the increasing costs of steel and turbines but, without such developments, the UK government is unlikely to achieve its targets for renewable energy provision. Some claim that BP is also now showing a reduced interest in 'green energy' and an increased appetite for hydrocarbons (although I would suspect they would claim to be investing in both). So, perhaps, the current phenomenon is one of these economic oddities? A cynical person might think, however, that the oil producers feel they have sufficiently re-branded themselves and can now dispense with the trappings of 'alternatives'. Perhaps, they might argue, oil companies are too busy maximising profits to help provide 'technofixs'?
No comments:
Post a Comment