BP agrees to sell US onshore wind business as it shifts back to oil
The company said it would sell its share of 10 windfarms, which generate enough clean energy to power more than 500,000 US homes, to the New York-headquartered LS Power.
The terms of BP's deal with the power and energy infrastructure company were not disclosed. But the value of the windfarms, nine of which are operated by BP, is understood to be about $2bn (£1.5bn).
The sale is part of BP's plan to offload $20bn in assets 'to simplify and focus the business' after a failed attempt to reinvent the oil multinational as a net zero energy company, and as it comes under pressure over its sluggish share price.
BP said it was 'no longer the best owners' to take the wind business forward. Renewable energy in the US has faced increasing pressure under Donald Trump's presidency.
The deal emerged weeks after one of the architects of BP's failed green agenda, Giulia Chierchia, stepped down from her role as executive in charge of sustainability strategy to 'pursue other opportunities' outside the company as it shifted back towards oil and gas production. She will not be replaced at BP, the company said.
BP's botched green ambitions have contributed to a collapse in the company's share price over recent years, which has made the 120-year-old company easy prey.
Shell was forced last month to deny market speculation that it planned to snap up its smaller rival. Shell has lost almost a third of its market value in the past year and is now worth about £58bn.
It reported interest in BP emerged months after the activist hedge fund Elliott Management amassed a stake in the company to agitate for changes to BP's strategy and its board.
So far the turnaround plan spearheaded by BP's chief executive, Murray Auchincloss, has failed to convince investors that the company can recover from a difficult few years during which its rivals have thrived by focusing on fossil fuels while global markets have been volatile.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
Auchincloss plans to shore up BP's balance sheets by completing $3b-$4bn of divestments this year, and has already agreed deals worth $1.5bn. He is expected to set out further progress on the divestment drive alongside the company's financial results for the second quarter in the first week of August. Meanwhile, BP is searching for a new chair to replace Helge Lund.
William Lin, the head of the company's gas and low-carbon energy business, said: 'We have been clear that while low-carbon energy has a role to play in a simpler, more focused BP, we will continue to rationalise and optimise our portfolio to generate value.'
'The onshore US wind business has great assets and fantastic people, but we have concluded we are no longer the best owners to take it forward,' Lin added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
US, EU trade talks bolstered by Trump's agreement with Japan
BRUSSELS/WASHINGTON, July 23 (Reuters) - The European Union and the U.S. are moving toward a trade deal that could include a 15% U.S. baseline tariff on EU goods and possible exemptions, two European diplomats said on Wednesday, potentially moving President Donald Trump closer to another major trade agreement on the heels of the one he just unveiled with Japan. European negotiators were hoping to reach an agreement to dodge the 30% tariff rate Trump has said he would impose on imports from the 27-nation bloc on August 1. The rate, which could also extend to cars, would mirror the framework agreement the U.S. has struck with Japan, which Trump announced late on Tuesday. There could be concessions for sectors like aircraft and lumber as well as some medicines and agricultural products, which would not face tariffs, the diplomats said. Washington does not, however, appear willing to lower its current 50% tariff on steel, they said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro told Bloomberg News the report from the EU should be taken with "a grain of salt." As talks continued, the European Commission said it would press on with potential counter-measures in case a deal was not reached. EU member states were set to vote on 93 billion euros of counter-tariffs on U.S. goods on Thursday, European diplomats said. A broad majority of members support using anti-coercion instruments if there is no deal, they said. Trump was aiming to secure an agreement on the heels of a complicated deal reached with Japan, the largest foreign investor in the U.S. That deal included a $550 investment and loan pledges from Japan and its commitment to buy 100 Boeing airplanes and boost purchases of U.S. agricultural products. That investment - to be spent at Trump's discretion - would focus on key industries like energy, semiconductors, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals and shipbuilding, the White House said on Wednesday. Tariffs on Japan's auto sector will drop from 27.5% to 15% as part of the agreement, reviving hopes for similar treatment for European cars. Asian and European stock markets rallied as investors cheered the U.S.-Japan agreement, but U.S. stocks showed a more modest rise and earnings reports were gloomy. American businesses making everything from chips to steel reported downbeat results on Wednesday, revealing how the Trump administration's chaotic trade policy has hurt profits, added to costs, upended supply chains and weighed on consumer confidence. U.S. automakers signaled their unhappiness with the Japan deal, raising concerns about a trade regime that cuts tariffs on Japanese auto imports while leaving 25% tariffs on imports from their plants and suppliers in Canada and Mexico. "Any deal that charges a lower tariff for Japanese imports with virtually no U.S. content than the tariff imposed on North American-built vehicles with high U.S. content is a bad deal for U.S. industry and U.S. auto workers," said Matt Blunt, the president of the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents General Motors (GM.N), opens new tab, Ford (F.N), opens new tab and Chrysler parent Stellantis ( opens new tab. Automobile stocks led the climb of European shares after the Japan deal spurred hopes that the U.S. was budging over tariffs on EU cars. EU officials have previously said Washington has shown little sign of doing so. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that Japan received the 15% rate on auto tariffs "because they were willing to provide this innovative financing mechanism" that he did not think other countries could replicate. Trump, however, has appeared open to a range of options as the U.S. negotiates trade deals. "I will only lower tariffs if a country agrees to open its market," Trump wrote in a social media post on Wednesday. The Republican president said late on Tuesday that other countries would be coming to Washington for talks this week. Governments were scrambling to close trade deals before next week's deadline that the White House has repeatedly pushed back under pressure from markets and intense lobbying by industry. U.S. and Chinese officials plan to meet in Stockholm next week to discuss extending an August 12 deadline for negotiating a trade deal. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday would not discuss expectations for the meeting, but said Bessent "looks forward to continuing discussions with his Chinese counterparts."
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Oil prices steady with trade talks in focus
NEW YORK, July 23 (Reuters) - Oil prices were little changed on Wednesday as investors assessed trade developments between the European Union and the U.S. after President Donald Trump reached a tariff deal, opens new tab with Japan. Brent crude futures settled 8 cents, or 0.12%, lower at $68.51 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures were down 6 cents, or 0.09%, at $65.25 per barrel. On Wednesday, EU officials said they were heading towards a trade deal with Washington that would result in a broad 15% tariff on EU goods imported into the U.S., avoiding a harsher 30% levy slated to be implemented from August 1. Just hours earlier, Trump said the U.S. and Japan had struck a trade deal that lowers tariffs on auto imports and spares Tokyo from punishing new levies on other goods in exchange for a $550 billion package of U.S.-bound investment and loans. "The trade deal with Japan might be a template for trade deals with other countries," said Andrew Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. "On the other hand, the market is still concerned about the U.S. coming to an agreement with the European Union and China." The European Commission planned to submit counter-tariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods for approval to EU members. A vote is expected on Thursday, though no measures would be imposed until August 7. Both benchmarks lost about 1% on Tuesday after the EU said it was considering countermeasures against U.S. tariffs. "The slide (in prices) of the past three sessions appears to have abated, but I don't expect much of an upward impetus from news of the U.S.-Japan trade deal as the hurdles and delays being reported in talks with the EU and China will remain a drag on sentiment," said Vandana Hari, founder of oil market analysis provider Vanda Insights. On the supply side, U.S. Energy Information Administration data showed U.S. crude inventories fell last week by 3.2 million barrels to 419 million barrels, compared with analysts' expectations in a Reuters poll for a 1.6 million-barrel draw. "That's a bullish swing," said Bob Yawger, director of energy futures at Mizuho. "It was largely a function of import-export dynamics." U.S. crude exports were up by 337,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 3.86 million bpd, while net U.S. crude imports fell last week by 740,000 barrels per day, the EIA said. In another bullish sign for the crude market, the U.S. energy secretary said on Tuesday that the U.S. would consider sanctioning Russian oil to end the war in Ukraine. The EU on Friday agreed its 18th sanctions package against Russia, lowering the price cap for Russian crude.
Times
43 minutes ago
- Times
Universal basic income is not the answer if AI comes for your job
As artificial intelligence upends the world of work, brace for renewed advocacy of a universal basic income (UBI). Tech enthusiasts, certain AI will turbocharge productivity but at the cost of millions of jobs, see UBI as a necessary monetary cushion for technological unemployment. And their cause attracts strange bedfellows. Social democrats salivate at the prospect of having more stigma-free redistribution; libertarians hope UBI might supplant employment regulation and the means-tested welfare state. Yet UBI's most fervent supporters foresee much broader benefits. To many, UBI isn't just a palliative for creative destruction or even a welfare reform. No, its proponents claim a modest government-guaranteed income is the key to unlocking a freer, healthier, more entrepreneurial society. If only it were that simple. Interest from the tech world has enabled expensive randomised controlled trials of UBI-inspired policies in the US. The results are largely disappointing. • Germans happier — but not lazier — with extra €1,200 a month In the OpenResearch Unconditional Income Study, 1,000 low-income participants across Texas and Illinois were given $1,000 a month, no strings attached, for three years. A control group of 2,000 received $50. One working paper released this week confirms the findings of another last year: the policy was no silver bullet for most economic and social problems. Advocates hoped extra income for families would mean more attentive parenting, greater investment in children's education and reduced family stress. And yes, parents receiving more money reported smacking their kids less and spending $32 more on them each month, including for clothes and essentials. Yet this didn't translate into educational gains or improved behavioural outcomes. In fact, parents reported a jump in issues such as child hyperactivity and fights between children. The researchers speculate that the extra cash freed parents to monitor children more closely, so noticing these problems. But might more intense supervision — edging towards helicopter parenting — itself worsen these outcomes? Nor did parents themselves get lasting relief. Sure, there was a brief improvement in their mental health in year one, but this faded quickly. By year two, anxiety and stress were back where they started. Free cash might calm nerves temporarily, but it didn't buy lasting peace of mind. A paper last year on the same experiment poured cold water on the idea that a guaranteed income would free people to invest in their productive future, too. Recipients, on average, banked the extra cash and enjoyed more leisure time, reducing their earned income. Yet there was little evidence that they used those extra hours to find better job matches, invest in education, or start (rather than just thinking about starting) a business. Instead, passive dependency grew. Even health outcomes showed scant improvement, with self-reported disability rising somewhat. Predictably, UBI's most die-hard supporters have questioned these disappointing results. Is it really a test of 'universal' income if the cash isn't given to everyone, permanently, but targeted temporarily at a young group volunteering to trial? But their quibbles cut both ways. The main reason governments reject UBI out-of-hand is that it is prohibitively expensive. With 69.6 million people, giving everyone in the UK £1,000 monthly would cost £835 billion a year — almost four times the NHS budget. • Britain is broke: how inflation-linked debt costs us £60bn Trials like this, conveniently, never test the higher taxes required to redistribute such sums. And being targeted at those on low incomes to begin with, one suspects this trial's results are, if anything, biased towards overestimating any benefits of the policy. Surely the uncomfortable truth is that most economic and social problems are too complex to solve by handing out cash. Children's development, adult mental wellbeing, and accessing fulfilling work require robust institutions, skills, and countless other factors that money can't buy. Yes, cash definitely helps ease poverty, and this trial confirms that beneficiaries were able to spend and save more. Yet as UBI enthusiasm resurfaces, the results suggest that seeing taxpayer-funded cash handouts as the path to widespread happiness and self-actualisation isn't visionary; it's delusional. Ryan Bourne is an economist at the Cato Institute and editor of the book The War on Prices
