In 2024 global production of wind and solar energy reached record levels—levels that would have seemed unthinkable not long before. Over the past 15 years, wind and solar have grown from virtually zero to 15 percent of the world’s electricity generation, and solar panel prices have fallen by as much as 90 percent. Such developments represent a notable advance in what is called the energy transition—the shift from the current hydrocarbon-dominated energy mix to a low-carbon one dominated by renewable sources.
Yet 2024 was a record year in another regard, as well: the amount of energy derived from oil and coal also hit all-time highs. Over a longer period, the share of hydrocarbons in the global primary energy mix has hardly budged, from 85 percent in 1990 to about 80 percent today.
In other words, what has been unfolding is not so much an “energy transition” as an “energy addition.” Rather than replacing conventional energy sources, the growth of renewables is coming on top of that of conventional sources. And with Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency, priorities will focus again on conventional energy production and what his administration calls “energy dominance.”
This was not how the energy transition was expected to proceed. Concern about climate change had raised expectations for a rapid shift away from carbon-based fuels. But the realities of the global energy system have confounded those expectations, making clear that the transition—from an energy system based largely on oil, gas, and coal to one based mostly on wind, solar, batteries, hydrogen, and biofuels—will be much more difficult, costly, and complicated than was initially expected. What’s more, the history of past energy transitions suggests that this should not come as a surprise: those were also “energy additions,” with each adding to rather than eliminating prior sources.
As a result, the world is far from on track to achieve the often stated target of reaching, by 2050, “net-zero emissions”—a balance in which any residual emissions are offset by removals of emissions from the atmosphere. And there is no clear plan for getting on track or for delivering the magnitude of investment that would be required to do so. The International Energy Agency projected in 2021 that, for the world to meet 2050 targets, greenhouse gas emissions would need to decline from 33.9 gigatons in 2020 to 21.2 gigatons in 2030; thus far, emissions have gone in the other direction, reaching 37.4 gigatons in 2023 (and there’s no reason to think that a 40 percent decline in just seven years will be remotely feasible). Other facts similarly reflect the challenges of transition. The Biden administration set a goal of electric vehicles accounting for 50 percent of new cars sold in the United States by 2030; yet that number remains just ten percent, with automakers slashing investment in electric vehicles as they face multibillion-dollar losses. Offshore wind production in the United States was supposed to reach 30 gigawatts by 2030 but will struggle to reach just 13 gigawatts by that date. And Trump administration policy changes will make these gaps even larger.
Part of the problem is sheer cost: many trillions of dollars, with great uncertainty as to who is to pay it. Part of the problem is the failure to appreciate that climate goals do not exist in a vacuum. They coexist with other objectives—from GDP growth and economic development to energy security and reducing local pollution—and are complicated by rising global tensions, both East-West and North-South. And part of the problem is how policymakers, business leaders, analysts, and activists expected the transition to go, and how plans were shaped accordingly.
What is becoming clear is that the shift in the global energy system will not unfold in a linear or steady manner. Rather, it will be multidimensional—unfolding differently in different parts of the world, at different rates, with different mixes of fuels and technologies, subject to competing priorities and shaped by governments and companies establishing their own paths. That requires rethinking policies and investment in light of the complicated realities.
Today’s Key Takeaways: BP shifting back to its oil and gas heritage. Pantheon names native Alaskan as new CEO. Philippines look to AK for LNG. Pebble permit lawsuit put on hold as new administration reviews litigation.
The British energy giant faces humiliation as the oil industry’s biggest loser on net zero
It was meant to be the moment when one of Britain’s most powerful companies broke decisively with its fossil fuel past.
Addressing journalists and executives at the Royal Lancaster Hotel overlooking Hyde Park, Bernard Looney, BP’s new chief executive, urged them to “reimagine” his company as a champion of green power.
By 2030, BP would have cut oil and gas production by 40pc, he pledged, with the lost fossil fuel income replaced by wind farms, solar parks and biofuels made from plants.
He said: “BP has been an international oil company for over a century … Now we are pivoting to become an integrated energy company.
“We believe our new strategy provides a comprehensive and coherent approach to turn our net zero ambition into action. This coming decade is critical for the world in the fight against climate change.”
Five years on from that speech in February 2020, the company is beleaguered by a ruthless activist investor, under pressure to boost its flatlining share price and considering a return to the oil and gas exploration that made it so successful to begin with.
The abrupt turn follows decades of crisis at one of Britain’s most venerable institutions. Today, its future is more uncertain than ever.
The net zero plans unveiled by Looney have hammered profits and generated intense speculation about a takeover, break up or even a merger with arch-rival Shell.
This month the fears became real with revelations that Elliott, a Florida-based hedge fund and corporate raider, has built a £3.8bn stake in BP – and is laying siege to the company.
On Wednesday, BP will face the ultimate test at its capital markets day when Murray Auchincloss, the company’s current chief executive, will seek to persuade skeptical investors that he can deliver a “fundamental reset.”
To win round doubters, he is expected to announce a major break with the last five years – shifting away from net zero and back towards its oil and gas heritage.
Pantheon Resources, which holds interests in Alaska, tabs Max Easley as chief executive
London-based Pantheon Resources, which operates in Alaska’s North Slope, has named Max Easley as its new chief executive, effective next week.
Easley, 57, will replace Jay Cheatham, who led Pantheon for 17 years and will remain with the company as a non-executive director “for a period of handover”.
A native Alaskan, Easley has held positions at BP, Apache and Petronas Canada, according to Pantheon. He graduated from the University of Alaska in 1991, and he cut his teeth as a petroleum engineer in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay.
Easley’s appointment is “another key step” for Pantheon, which says it is considering listing in the US.
“Pantheon will benefit from his more than 30 years of experience in the oil and natural gas industry, particularly his experience on Alaska’s North Slope and successful Permian and Montney developments,” Pantheon executive chairman David Hobbs said in a statement.
“This deep industry expertise, coupled with his strategic judgment and performance track record make him the ideal candidate to execute upon Pantheon’s strategy. Under Max’s leadership, the Company will be well positioned to shift from an exploration to a development and production company in short order.”
Pantheon operates the Ahpun and Kodiak fields on Alaska’s North Slope. The company also has a supply deal in place with the proposed $44 billion Alaska LNG project.
The Philippines is considering importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Alaska as the Trump administration sets its sights on reviving its long-delayed USD44 billion gas pipeline project.
Alaska earlier secured President Donald Trump’s backing to develop the Alaska LNG project, which can process and transport up to 20 million tons of LNG annually.
The project aims to connect the gas fields from northern Alaska to a port in the south for liquefaction and export, primarily to the Asian market.
“We plan to procure LNG from Alaska to meet our growing needs to develop our energy sector,” Philippine Ambassador to the US Jose Manuel Romualdez posted on X Saturday.
“Pres. (Ferdinand) Marcos (Jr.) hopes to discuss this and other matters of mutual benefit and interest for both our countries when he meets with Pres. Trump at the soonest possible time.”
There is no specific timeline as of yet but the envoy said the two governments are working to set a bilateral meeting between the two leaders within the year.
Romualdez said the Alaskan offer would help the country secure a stable supply of LNG on top of getting it at a competitive price.
“Similar to what Japan that made a commitment, we are prepared to make a commitment to be able to buy some of that LNG. This is being offered to us matagal na (way back) by US Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska),” he told the Philippine News Agency.
“They have an abundant supply, so we might be able to get it very cheap—That’s what we are hearing from them that’s why we are considering it as part of our energy mix,” he added.
On Feb. 20, officials of the Philippine Embassy in Washington DC met with Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy who said steps are being taken to implement Trump’s “America First” priority of supporting Alaskan LNG exports.
Northern Dynasty agrees to 90-day pause as EPA, Army Corps leadership changes under new administration.
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. Feb. 18 announced that its subsidiary, Pebble Limited Partnership, has agreed to a 90-day pause requested by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), allowing new agency leadership time to review the ongoing litigation over the federal veto that has blocked development of the world-class copper-gold project in Southwest Alaska.
After years of regulatory back-and-forth, the permitting battle over Pebble escalated in 2020 when USACE denied federal permits for the project, citing potential impacts to the Bristol Bay watershed.
This decision came despite a previously completed Environmental Impact Statement that found the project could be developed without harming the region’s world-class salmon fishery.
In the aftermath, Northern Dynasty pushed for reconsideration, arguing that the permit denial was “flawed and politically motivated.” Meanwhile, the state of Alaska, which holds ownership over the lands Pebble is located on, contested the decision as federal overreach that undermined its constitutional right to manage its own resources.
Those efforts were ultimately blocked in early 2023 when EPA took the unprecedented step of issuing a Clean Water Act Section 404(c) determination, preemptively vetoing any mining activity within a 309-square-mile area of state-owned land – effectively shutting down the project and overriding Alaska’s authority.
In response, both Northern Dynasty and the state filed lawsuits against the EPA, arguing that the agency’s decision unlawfully stripped Alaska of its rights and set a dangerous precedent for future resource development.
The legal battle intensified last year when USACE confirmed it could not reconsider its permit denial due to the EPA’s veto, reinforcing claims that the agencies had worked in tandem to block the project.
In mid-2024, the U.S. Federal District Court in Alaska allowed Northern Dynasty to amend its lawsuit, adding the Army Corps as a defendant and asserting that both agencies had acted beyond their authority to preemptively halt the permitting process.
Now, with the transition of power in Washington, D.C., the Biden-era EPA and Army Corps leadership are being replaced, and the new administration has begun a broad rollback of environmental regulations and permitting restrictions.
In anticipation of these changes, EPA and Army Corps have requested a 90-day abeyance in the ongoing litigation over Pebble’s permit veto, allowing time for incoming leadership to assess the case.
Northern Dynasty did not oppose the request, viewing the pause as a chance to reevaluate the decision under a new regulatory approach.
“Given the timing of the recent confirmation of the Administrator of the EPA, the executive orders by President Trump and comments made by the new administration regarding the need for science and facts and domestic critical mineral production, we are not objecting to this request for abeyance by the defendants,” said Northern Dynasty President and CEO Ron Thiessen. “The 90-day period will give the new administration time to familiarize themselves with the issues presented in this case and to decide how they wish to proceed. We believe the EPA acted inappropriately when they vetoed any mining activity on the world’s largest undeveloped copper deposit, the Pebble project.”
Hands down, SB 92 wins the Bad Bill of the Week – “An Act establishing an income tax on certain entities producing or transporting oil or gas in the state; and providing for an effective date.”
Quote of the Day: “I don’t really care who it applies to – anyone who pulls oil out of the ground” Senator Rob Yundt, Bill Sponsor.
The basics: A bill that targets one S corporation, from one industry, out of the 11,900 Alaskan S corporations, to pay a tax that threatens dozens of Alaskan businesses, hundreds of Alaskan workers and investment in Cook Inlet, all under the guise of being “fair.”
The details:
Establishes a tax on business entities making profits in state on petroleum production or pipeline transportation that are not established as C corporations (C-corps) for tax purposes under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code. Sole proprietorships, partnerships
They must pay a tax of 9.4% annually mirroring the percent tax that C-corps pay to the state, but only on profits over $5 million.
The Commissioner of Revenue shall aggregate the taxable income of two or more entities when their income could be reasonably attributable to a single entity.
Revenue from the tax is deposited into a fund for use on energy and electrical grid projects or upgrades.
The bill would be retroactive to January 1, 2025.
The fiscal note projects that the state would receive $185m in FY 2026 (combination of 6 months retroactive payments and the full year of FY26) and a DECREASE in income every year after that due to declining production non-C corporation producers.
The fiscal note also provides the following disclaimer on any projected income:
“The revenue impact of the corporate income tax portion of this legislation is highly uncertain, as the Department does not have detailed financial information for the companies that would be impacted. Further, the revenue impact would likely be concentrated in a small number of companies “
The bill had its first hearing on Wednesday, February 19th in the Senate Resources Committee.
Alaska’s rugged landscape demands hard work, grit, and determination: qualities that define those who thrive here. This same spirit has maintained strong support for Alaska LNG, a bold undertaking that embodies opportunity and forward-thinking action. It is this kind of development that Glenfarne Group LLC knows how to make a reality.
Glenfarne has built its reputation on energy infrastructure projects and initiatives that require leadership and an entrepreneurial spirit. Alaska LNG is vitally important to the energy security of Alaska, the United States, and global markets. Our mindset and experience as a premier independent private energy infrastructure developer, along with the hard work and shared goals of Alaskans, will make this project successful.
Last year, following an extensive global search for a development partner by the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., Gov. Mike Dunleavy described his vision for Alaska LNG to me. Afterwards, Glenfarne reviewed the project’s fundamentals, including what is important for the development of the project and what has changed over the last 10 years. We determined that Alaska LNG is a competitive, well-positioned energy infrastructure project that will generate over $10 billion of tax revenue for the state and local boroughs, 18,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction and 1,500 direct and indirect jobs when operating. It just needed the right private developer to join with the state, take it on and move it forward. That’s us and that’s our role.
In conjunction with our review of Alaska LNG, Glenfarne also offered our expertise to help Enstar and other gas utilities manage the risk of a gas shortfall via temporary LNG imports, if necessary. Whether Alaska imports LNG or not, Glenfarne is heavily engaged in Alaska LNG, and it is the primary reason we plan to bring our expertise to Alaska.
Glenfarne is here to be part of Alaska’s prosperous future. We have received an outpouring of inquiries since our role with Alaska LNG and Enstar was disclosed. Overwhelmingly, these inquiries have been enthusiastic expressions of support for the project from Alaska leaders and residents, including authentic and heartwarming messages of gratitude and encouragement from residents whose family members were vital to the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline.
Every day, Glenfarne meets the critical energy needs of the countries where we operate. In the United States, we are the developer, owner and operator of Magnolia LNG and Texas LNG. Texas LNG is the most recent U.S. LNG project to fully sell its LNG volumes with a total market value over $60 billion during the respective contract periods. Texas LNG’s key global project partners include EQT, Baker Hughes, ABB, Kiewit, Macquarie, Gunvor, Honeywell and a European utility that is one of the biggest traders of LNG.
In Chile, Glenfarne’s grid stability infrastructure prevents blackouts with our rapid response thermal power plants that are required to backstop the country’s renewable energy expansion.
In Colombia, Glenfarne imported $240 million of LNG in 2024 from 35 cargoes to supplement the country’s declining gas production and power our natural gas plants as Colombia faces an energy crisis due to drought conditions preventing their hydroelectric plants from operating. In situations that require timely, high-stakes energy solutions, we deliver.
From a financing perspective, Glenfarne’s bond holders, relationship banks and project investors total over 50 premier global institutions. They trust us with their funds and investments, supporting our view that we will successfully finance, build, and operate the full scale of the Alaska project.
Glenfarne appreciates the tremendous support coming from the Trump administration for Alaska LNG. This will be invaluable to the accelerated advancement of this project. However, it is important to note our support of the project started prior to these recent developments. We stepped forward because we believe in Alaska’s spirit, people, and leadership. Projects like the trans-Alaska pipeline and Alaska LNG are built by those who believe and those who can. They require courage and confidence. History shows that Alaskans can complete ambitious, global scale projects when they unite around a common goal. Glenfarne is excited to join Alaska as it charts a new path to global energy security for our allies and a stronger economy for Alaska, the U.S., and the countries that receive Alaska LNG’s exports.
Brendan Duval is the CEO and founder of Glenfarne Group LLC.
Despite new administration’s support, the state has been a challenging place to operate
My Financial Times colleagues Amanda Chu, Claire Bushey and Gregory Meyer have reported how Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum could affect companies ranging from manufacturers to oil and gas drillers.
Steel and aluminum are essential for oil and gas drilling, pipelines, grid infrastructure and clean energy components. Tariffs could raise costs and complicate the US president’s plan to boost domestic energy production.
Higher costs have been an ongoing problem for the US. New figures yesterday showed that US inflation reaccelerated in January, bolstering the case that the Federal Reserve will extend a pause on interest rate cuts, which would hurt renewable developers that pay high upfront costs for projects.
In today’s Energy Source we look at the Trump administration’s initiative to revitalize the oil and gas industry in Alaska. Despite the White House’s backing, the state’s high costs, lack of regulatory stability and litigation risks from environmental groups still make it a challenging place to invest. Trump’s support may only be the first step in boosting oil and gas development there.
Can Trump unleash Alaska’s resource potential?
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order to “unleash Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential,” undoing Joe Biden-era climate protections that restricted oil and gas development in the state.
The president’s order vowed to expedite permitting and leasing of energy projects in Alaska, reverse resource development restrictions on state and federal lands including crucial areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A), rescind cancellation of any leases within the ANWR and prioritize the development of liquefied natural gas.
The administration has singled out Alaska LNG, a $44bn project proposed by the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), as a permitting priority. Alaska LNG has undergone 10 years of planning but has not yet attracted big corporate backers or private funding. If constructed, it is estimated to export 20mn tons a year, becoming a potential game-changer in supplying US liquid natural gas to Asia.
But the AGDC is the only company pursuing the development of the project after BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil pulled out in 2016.
Last Friday, Trump name-checked the Alaskan project and disclosed that Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba had agreed to import more US LNG, adding momentum to the president’s push to boost oil and gas development in the Arctic state.
“[Alaska] is the closest point of major oil and gas to Japan by far. We’re talking about a joint venture of some type between Japan and [the US] having to do with Alaska oil and gas,” Trump said at a joint press conference.
But Trump will need to do a lot more to convince oil and gas producers to boost investment in the state.
Alaska’s oil production has fallen from about 2mn barrels a day at its peak in 1988 to 426,000 b/d in 2023, the lowest level since 1976, according to the US Energy Information Administration. While two big projects — ConocoPhillips’s $8bn Willow and Santos’ Pikka — are in development, they are only expected to raise output to 650,000 b/d, according to consultancy WoodMackenzie.
Mark Oberstoetter, head of Americas upstream research at Wood Mackenzie, said there had been a “quiet revitalization” in Alaska of onshore drilling, but added that the development had not been as “quick” as other regions in the lower 48 states. “There’s been uncertainty as you go west into federal administered lands. How fast can you get your permits? How fast can you get your developments approved?”
The last lease sale in the ANWR, which was held days before Trump entered office, received zero bids.
Despite the new administration’s support, Alaska has been a challenging place to operate as high costs, lack of regulatory stability and litigation risks cause some producers to shy away from further investments.
Drillers also face a global oil market that is already well supplied as demand growth slows, putting pressure on prices. The US EIA expects the price of Brent crude will average $74 a barrel in 2025 and fall further to $66 a barrel in 2026.
“The market is just not in a state where a lot of operators are going to explore such an uncertain and high-cost Arctic area when the market is already well-supplied,” said Tom Liles, vice-president of upstream research for Rystad Energy.
Companies must also adapt to the winter elements in Alaska’s North Slope — a northern region that is home to the ANWR and NPR-A — by building gravel pads or ice roads, which Wood Mackenzie estimates can cost $1mn a mile. The ice roads would need to be rebuilt every winter and producers must bring in crews from out of state because of a limited number of rigs, crews and services, Oberstoetter said.
There is also the political pendulum of Washington.
The first Trump administration opened up the ANWR for development and mandated at least two lease sales in the refuge by 2024. The Biden administration scrapped all but the two legally required oil and gas lease sales in the ANWR.
Much of Alaska’s oil and gas reserves are located in federally protected lands such as ANWR and NPR-A. As a result, producers can be vulnerable to a change in administration that may not be friendly to oil and gas drilling in the Arctic.
“We’re hoping that there can be some durable foundational changes made . . . that allows for consistent regulations moving forward to get away from this . . . pendulum swing that we see from one administration to the next,” said Kara Moriarty, president of Alaska Oil and Gas Association.
David Hobbs, executive chair of Alaskan operator Pantheon Resources, said “it is likely that capital will be easier to access in an environment that is as supportive as the executive orders issued by the Trump administration indicate.”
Gents – with today being Valentine's Day – we made you this downloadable card so you don't have to stop by CVS on the way home from work to pick one up.
