The oil and gas sector has been experimenting with solar power as a generation source for oil operations for decades, such as this Chevron (then ChevronTexaco) California project in 2003. As costs of solar come down and pressure intensifies on oil companies to cut emissions, more renewable energy will de deployed, but it may remain limited — in scope and effectiveness.
David McNew | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Oil and gas companies are working hard on their messaging in the climate change era. If it’s “code red for humanity” as the UN’s IPCC said last Monday in its latest dire climate report, it’s some sort of “code red” for the fossil fuels industry too, in terms of figuring out how to stay relevant, believable — and for the market, investable — in an era of carbon emissions reduction mandates from governments, regulators and shareholders.
Occidental CEO Vicki Hollub took a stab at it earlier this year, saying fossil fuels aren’t the problem — it’s emissions. It follows that if fossil fuel companies can find ways to eliminate emissions, on a large enough scale, maybe they can convince shareholders and stakeholders that they are moving into the future in more sustainable way.
But there are big differences in emissions types and emissions reduction strategies. What oil and gas companies do to reduce emissions in their operations and supply chain are, in the end, a smaller part of the carbon reduction game than reducing what is known as Scope 3 emissions — for example, from the tailpipe of your car. Those Scope 3 emissions, by expert estimates, are responsible for the vast majority of carbon emissions from the energy industry.
Lowering carbon emissions profile of oil and gas drilling
Companies including ExxonMobil have begun to disclose Scope 3 emissions, but in terms of their efforts to reduce emissions, remain focused on their own operations. What oil and gas companies do to lower operational emissions, the energy used to power drilling and all the way to the trucks going to and from drilling sites, does matter. Though how much it matters is inevitably smaller in the grander scheme of carbon emissions reduction efforts.
“The electricity oil and gas companies use is a pretty small contributor to their carbon footprint,” said Chris Archer, head of Americas forMacquarie Capital’s Green Investment Group.
Occidental has been a leader in many of the new technology approaches to lowering the emissions profile of the oil and gas business. As Hollub told CNBC earlier this year, “The reality of a net-zero carbon barrel, it is possible, and we are doing things to make it possible. It’s not a goal on a sheet of paper.”
Occidental is working on multiple projects related to carbon sequestration, not just for its operations, but other heavy emitters in the industrial sector. A growing but smaller part of that new technology thinking for oil and gas operations, which is expected to see more development in the future, is solar energy — solar panel arrays spreading out in places like the Permian Basin to help lower the emissions profile of oil and gas operations.
Occidental already has a 16 megawatt solar farm in the Permian — the first large-scale solar project to directly power oil and gas operations in Texas — and Hollub told CNBC earlier this year “we will be doing more of that. We believe it will take everything, and we will add more solar over time.”
Oil and gas industry’s history with solar
Solar isn’t a new thing for oil and gas. Chevron had a project powering operations in the Kern oil field of California as far back as 2003, and BP even got into solar panel manufacturing for decades under Sir John Browne’s “Beyond Petroleum” mission (before solar manufacturing became mostly China’s game and most everyone else went bankrupt).
“This isn’t a brand new journey,” said Amy Chronis, leader of Deloitte’s US Oil, Gas & Chemicals team in Houston. “But it’s still early days to see broad-based carbon reductions.”
Now several of the European and U.S. majors are making major investments in renewable again, including BP and Royal Dutch Shell, and all the big oil and gas companies have at least a few solar power projects, whether they developed them on their own or signed what are known as power purchase agreements with project developers, including ExxonMobil, which has added to its renewable energy portfolio in recent years.
It bought 500 megawatts of wind and solar in 2018 from Danish renewable energy company Orsted, the largest renewable deal ever signed by a U.S. major. Chevron signed its own 500 MW project last summer, with the energy generation to be split between the Permian, Argentina and Kazakhstan.
A lot of the renewable energy history within solar has been more fits and starts — and lower down the priority list —than consistent application to the business. Though, the pressure is mounting.
Benjamin Shattuck, research director for Americas upstream oil and gas at energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie,saidmost of the companies he follows in the U.S. are still fairly early on in their journey to a carbon reduction model, but as environmental performance and ESG become more mainstream — he said ESG is top of agenda when he talks to oil CEOs lately —and more companies talk about net-zero targets and tie executive compensation to the goals, the situation is rapidly changing.
“Oxy is one of the companies helping to lead the conversation, between the Goldsmith solar plant [the 16 MW plant Hollub referenced] and longer-term carbon capture and storage, they are thinking about it from a bold standpoint, which is good to see. Everything points to it picking up and accelerating,” Shattuck said.
The Permian is well-suited to renewables
Places like the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico are well-suited to renewable energy, with lots of land and a regulatory framework favorable to project development, whether oil and gas or renewables, but the economics have to make sense. And increasingly, they do.
An oil pump operates in the Permian Basin oil field near Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Joe Raedle | Hulton Archive | Getty Images
Archer says these companies can have a much bigger impact on carbon reduction through carbon capture efforts and flaring reduction than by going into renewables for the power. But the Permian Basin is one of the best places in the U.S. to cite solar, with loads of cheap flat land and really good irradiance. “Today, solar, for lots of oil and gas is the economic choice versus diesel generators,” Archer said.
That implies solar and wind projects being developed may have been less about a focus on carbon reduction, in his view, than being driven by the power generation being economically competitive. And Archer said given how economic solar has become in places like the Permian, if oil and gas companies were serious about it as a de-carbonization strategy, we might have seen more of it already under development.
Never going to be oil’s carbon solution
No one is suggesting solar is oil’s solution. One or two solar plants, “won’t move the needle,” Shattuck said. But larger power purchase agreements and multiple projects across companies in the sector, isn’t insignificant either, in his view. “More operations need to be powered from renewables, whether they own the projects or are taking renewable generation from the grid,” Shattuck said.
It’s a complex process to attempt to make oil and gas drilling operations 100% renewable, from running the drilling rigs to generators and compressors and fracking trucks to get people to and from the field. The energy being used to prepare and drill new wells is greater than for existing wells, and these operations are not stationary either, moving around the Permian from West Texas to New Mexico with electric needs variable. In other words, if you build a solar plant in one area, you can’t just easily pick it up and move it to another where more wells are being focused on. That’s why Shattuck said we may see more oil and gas companies signing power purchase agreements with project developers.
“In some cases, that alleviates the capital risk,” he said.
But all the diesel that is used today — especially the more remote a drilling site is —does represent a wide range of power replacement opportunities.
The oil field is emissions reduction ‘low-hanging fruit’
Because Scope 3 emissions are the vast majority of emissions and the furthest from the oil and gas companies direct control — and maybe active interest in controlling, with ExxonMobil saying that while it will track Scope 3 it is really up to society and consumers to make their own energy choices — renewable energy in the fields is in a sense, the low-hanging fruit.
“Electrification of the oil field is important, and solar and wind can play a role, part of a larger puzzle that has to be solved. There isn’t a single solution today, that’s the theme,” Shattuck said. “It needs to be multi-technology for them.”
This won’t go over well with those ready to leave the fossil fuels economy behind, because the model is in effect augmenting what oil and gas companies are doing in the oil field rather than representing any full-scale pivot. It’s the emissions are the problem —not fossil fuels — of Hollub.
Building solar is not their solution. It’s good asset management with economic benefits on their existing assets. But it’s not a rubric through which they de-carbonize.
Chris Archer
Macquarie Capital’s Green Investment Group
But that low-hanging fruit gives the companies a means to test the market, see how investors and stakeholders react, and going down the road of renewables, because it’s not what they have typically done in the past, is part of the effort that will be put into winning back investors in the years ahead.
“They need to find out what’s hitting the mark and what isn’t, and if Goldsmith [the Oxy solar project] is resonating well with investors, then maybe they do more,” Shattuck said.
The first net-zero oil barrel
Archer worries it is still more about issuing a press release than executing on significant change, and he is skeptical that these projects can change the image of these companies.
“When was the last time you bought something from Oxy? It’s not like you’re swayed as a consumer,” he said. “Building a 20 MW solar farm and issuing a press release won’t earn you many points. You need a bigger strategy and goals.”
But while the consumer at the gas pump may not think in those carbon-neutral barrel terms today, industrial buyers already do. “We have talked to companies producing natural gas and the off taker is a utility and that utility does care about the carbon footprint, about the gas burning in a power plant,” said Kate Hardin, executive director of the Deloitte Research Center for Energy & Industrials. “So maybe it is not as direct as a person, as the end user in retail, but companies buying the oil and gas may care.”
There are multiple business cases to make in the future that revolve around more of these deals, if on the margins, and that relate back to the value of more renewable energy generation in the fields. Oil and gas companies need to find new competitive advantages, and even if there is a case where the economics of a solar plant don’t work on their own, decreasing export risk could be another way to make the model productive.
“It will be interesting to watch that competition. It’s proof of concept work, really early on,” Shattuck said.
That work comes at time when the sector is focused more on capital discipline and budget cuts then spending, making it more difficult for oil and gas companies to pull the trigger on experiments with technology. One of the biggest questions for the future of the oil and gas industry is tied up in the question of how much renewable energy development it pursues — what percentage of the overall spending is earmarked for carbon emissions reduction.
“I don’t think it will be an insignificant amount. If they want to continue to have access to funding and capital they will have to continue with a variety of these technologies and strategies, and we will learn more about what’s most effective,” Shattuck said.
The oil and gas companies early work on solar implies they are learning and getting familiar with the technology, and it will stay in the mix, but other initiatives will be more material, in Archer’s view. “Building solar is not their solution. It’s good asset management with economic benefits on their existing assets. But it’s not a rubric through which they de-carbonize. But we will see more of it,” he said.
For a long time, the oil and gas industry could do no right when it came to cutting spending and running operations on a more conservative basis. But in recent years, the industry has been forced by investors to do just that. Now capital discipline is a top priority to stay in favor with investors.
Carbon reduction efforts, including renewable energy projects like solar, are a different mode of thinking than deciding on exploration spending, but there’s a similarity: the companies are leapfrogging each other in terms of targets and as technology gets rolled out, it will play a role in the sector players that investors decide on as the likely winners.
“It would be surprising if the budget line item is low,” Shattuck said.
Especially with oil and gas executive compensation packages now much more frequently designed to only go up if carbon emissions go down.
More than 3 years later, the vehicle never went into volume production. Instead, Tesla only ran a very low volume pilot production at a factory in Nevada and only delivered a few dozen trucks to customers as part of test programs.
But Tesla promised that things would finally happen for the Tesla Semi this year.
The goal was to start production in 2025, start customer deliveries, and ramp up to 50,000 trucks yearly.
Now, Ryder, a large transportation company and early customer-partner in Tesla’s semi truck program, is talking about further delays. The company also refers to a significant price increase.
California’s Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) awarded Ryder funding for a project to deploy Tesla Semi trucks and Megachargers at two of its facilities in the state.
Ryder had previously asked for extensions amid the delays in the Tesla Semi program.
In a new letter sent to MSRC last week and obtained by Electrek, Ryder asked the agency for another 28-month delay. The letter references delays in “Tesla product design, vehicle production” and it mentions “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics”:
This extension is needed due to delays in Tesla product design, vehicle production and dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics. These delays have caused us to reevaluate the current Ryder fleet in the area.
The logistics company now says it plans to “deploy 18 Tesla Semi vehicles by June 2026.”
The reference to “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics” points to a significant price increase for the Tesla Semi, which further communication with MSRC confirms.
In the agenda of a meeting to discuss the extension and changes to the project yesterday, MSRC confirms that the project went from 42 to 18 Tesla Semi trucks while the project commitment is not changing:
Ryder has indicated that their electric tractor manufacturer partner, Tesla, has experienced continued delays in product design and production. There have also been dramatic changes to the product economics. Ryder requests to reduce the number of vehicles from 42 to 18, stating that this would maintain their $7.5 million private match commitment.
In addition to the electric trucks, the project originally involved installing two integrated power centers and four Tesla Megachargers, split between two locations. Ryder is also looking to now install 3 Megachargers per location for a total of 6 instead of 4.
The project changes also mention that “Ryder states that Tesla now requires 600kW chargers rather than the 750kW units originally engineered.”
Tesla Semi Price
When originally unveiling the Tesla Semi in 2017, the automaker mentioned prices of $150,000 for a 300-mile range truck and $180,000 for the 500-mile version. Tesla also took orders for a “Founder’s Series Semi” at $200,000.
However, Tesla didn’t update the prices when launching the “production version” of the truck in late 2023. Price increases have been speculated, but the company has never confirmed them.
New diesel-powered Class 8 semi trucks in the US today often range between $150,000 and $220,000.
The combination of a reasonable purchase price and low operation costs, thanks to cheaper electric rates than diesel, made the Tesla Semi a potentially revolutionary product to reduce the overall costs of operation in trucking while reducing emissions.
However, Ryder now points to a “dramatic” price increase for the Tesla Semi.
What is the cost of a Tesla Semi electric truck now?
Electrek’s Take
As I have often stated, Tesla Semi is the vehicle program I am most excited about at Tesla right now.
If Tesla can produce class 8 trucks capable of moving cargo of similar weight as diesel trucks over 500 miles on a single charge in high volume at a reasonable price point, they have a revolutionary product on their hands.
But the reasonable price part is now being questioned.
After reading the communications between Ryder and MSRC, while not clear, it looks like the program could be interpreted as MSRC covering the costs of installing the charging stations while Ryder committed $7.5 million to buying the trucks.
The math makes sense for the original funding request since $7.5 million divided by 42 trucks results in around $180,000 per truck — what Tesla first quoted for the 500-mile Tesla Semi truck.
Now, with just 18 trucks, it would point to a price of $415,000 per Tesla Semi truck. It’s possible that some of Ryder’s commitment could also go to an increase in Megacharger prices – either per charger or due to the two additional chargers. MSRC said that they don’t give more money when prices go up after an extension.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 500-mile Tesla Semi ends up costing $350,000 to $400,000.
If that’s the case, Tesla Semi is impressive, but it won’t be the revolutionary product that will change the trucking industry.
It will need to be closer to $250,000-$300,000 to have a significant impact, which is not impossible with higher-volume production but would be difficult.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
British oil and gasoline company BP (British Petroleum) signage is being pictured in Warsaw, Poland, on July 29, 2024.
Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images
British oil major BP on Friday said its chair Helge Lund will soon step down, kickstarting a succession process shortly after the company launched a fundamental strategic reset.
“Having fundamentally reset our strategy, bp’s focus now is on delivering the strategy at pace, improving performance and growing shareholder value,” Lund said in a statement.
“Now is the right time to start the process to find my successor and enable an orderly and seamless handover,” he added.
Lund is expected to step down in 2026. BP said the succession process will be led by Amanda Blanc in her capacity as senior independent director.
Shares of BP traded 2.2% lower on Friday morning. The London-listed firm has lagged its industry rivals in recent years.
BP announced in February that it plans to ramp up annual oil and gas investment to $10 billion through 2027 and slash spending on renewables as part of its new strategic direction.
Analysts have broadly welcomed BP’s renewed focus on hydrocarbons, although the beleaguered energy giant remains under significant pressure from activist investors.
U.S. hedge fund Elliott Management has built a stake of around 5% to become one of BP’s largest shareholders, according to Reuters.
Activist investor Follow This, meanwhile, recently pushed for investors to vote against Lund’s reappointment as chair at BP’s April 17 shareholder meeting in protest over the firm’s recent strategy U-turn.
Lund had previously backed BP’s 2020 strategy, when Bernard Looney was CEO, to boost investment in renewables and cut production of oil and gas by 40% by 2030.
BP CEO Murray Auchincloss, who took the helm on a permanent basis in January last year, is under significant pressure to reassure investors that the company is on the right track to improve its financial performance.
‘A more clearly defined break’
“Elliott continues to press BP for a sharper, more clearly defined break with the strategy to pivot more quickly toward renewables, that was outlined by Bernard Looney when he was CEO,” Russ Mould, AJ Bell’s investment director, told CNBC via email on Friday.
“Mr Lund was chair then and so he is firmly associated with that plan, which current boss Murray Auchincloss is refining,” he added.
Mould said activist campaigns tend to have “fairly classic thrusts,” such as a change in management or governance, higher shareholder distributions, an overhaul of corporate structure and operational improvements.
“In BP’s case, we now have a shift in capital allocation and a change in management, so it will be interesting to see if this appeases Elliott, though it would be no surprise if it feels more can and should be done,” Mould said.
On today’s hyped up hydrogen episode of Quick Charge, we look at some of the fuel’s recent failures and billion dollar bungles as the fuel cell crowd continues to lose the credibility race against a rapidly evolving battery electric market.
We’re taking a look at some of the recent hydrogen failures of 2025 – including nine-figure product cancellations in the US and Korea, a series of simultaneous bus failures in Poland, and European executives, experts, and economists calling for EU governments to ditch hydrogen and focus on the deployment of a more widespread electric trucking infrastructure.
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Got news? Let us know! Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.