Times change, and what was once a perfectly respectable product becomes widely reviled and the target of banning campaigns. What does a successful company do in such a situation? Well, a rational plan would be to move operations into unimpeachable products: thus we have cigaretteer Philip Morris this July splashing a cool billion on buying the asthma inhaler company Vectura.

Oil is presently an unpopular substance (although unlike cigarettes, it is a vital part of modern civilisation). For oil companies, watching the ratchet turn against them must have been quite alarming. One surmises that potential responses to this crisis were discussed at many a board meeting, and that top on the list of solutions was: let’s shift our focus from oil to renewables. This is a no-brainer. For a business focussed on an unpopular (still necessary, mind) product subject to increasingly onerous restrictions, there is obvious appeal in switching to an acclaimed product with large public subsidies pushing it.

Among the first to notice which way the wind was blowing was Dansk Olie og Naturgas – DONG. DONG was involved in the first round of the Crown Estate’s leasing of seabed assets in 2001, with the windfarms Barrow (90 MW); Burbo Bank (90 MW); and Gunfleet Sands I and II (173 MW). It has since got out of oil and gas altogether and renamed itself Ørsted. In September 2020 someone noticed that Ørsted’s market cap had exceeded BP’s (although the situation has since reversed).

Which brings us to to the recent fourth leasing round of the Crown Estate’s seabed assets. Six leases were auctioned:

LotPowerWinnerOption fee deposit
paid (exc. VAT)
11.5 GWRWE-renewables£114,304,500.00
21.5 GWRWE-renewables£133,350,000.00
31.5 GWGreen Investment Group – Total£124,573,000.00
41.5 GWBP – EnBW£231,000,000.00
50.48 GWOffshore Wind Limited£44,751,840.00
61.5 GWBP – EnBW£231,000,000.00

You will note that BP and its partner En-BW (Energie Baden-Württemberg) paid twice as much for sites with the same capacity as RWE paid for lot 1. (Lot 1 is on the Dogger Bank, whereas the BP-EnBW lots are in the Irish Sea: see featured image.)

The Crown Estate’s announcement included these platitudinous inanities:

Energy Minister, Anne-Marie Trevelyan said: “The UK is a world leader in offshore wind energy, with the Prime Minister’s Ten Point Plan laying out a bold ambition to produce enough offshore wind to power every home in the UK.”

And

Dan Labbad, Chief Executive of The Crown Estate, said: [“Blah blah blah…” Then:] “With a net zero goal, some of the best offshore wind resources in the world, and clear commitment from Government and industry to continue investing in the low carbon economy, the UK stands ready to play its part in addressing the global climate crisis.”

Among many things wrong with that sentence, this minor tweak comes to mind:

“…clear commitment from Government and industry to continue investing in forcing households to waste money on the low carbon economy…”

‘s a bit better. The gov’t are not investing here. They are raking in money from the auction for doing jack. And if they were investing, it is not their money to invest, but ours. The monumentally grotesque subsidies, as we have seen, come straight out of bill-payers’ pockets, and may well be flowing to persons many of us would prefer not to send our money to. Etc etc.

Of BP’s winning bids, Reuters said:

BP and German utility EnBW jointly bid 154,000 pounds/MW/year ($211,400/MW/yr) for each of two 1.5 GW leases, some 65% higher than the next successful bidder.

There are 8766 ish hours in a year. So, if each of your £154,000 megawatts worked flat out at 100% of its capacity all year, it would generate 8766 MWh. So for each MWh, BP are paying £154,000/8766 = £17.57.

You might think that’s not so bad. After all, the present lot of wind farms are getting well over £100/MWh in CfDs. Yes, but the latest bids for CfDs are offering to supply leccy at under £40/MWh at 2012 prices (after all, “wind is the cheapest form of electricity”). Let’s call that £50/MWh at 2021 prices.

And we must note at this stage that the figure of 17 and a half quid per MWh is based on 100% capacity factor and availability. Let’s say the new BP windfarms achieve 50% capacity factor (high, but not impossible), which would make the lease cost £35/MWh.

Reuters again:

BP and EnBW plant [sic] to take a final investment decision (FID) on their windfarms in 2025, BP’s low carbon energy chief Dev Sanyal told Reuters last month, which implies the companies will each pay around 1 billion pounds in lease fees before then.

The present author, mumbling to himself:

Dev Sanyal seems to have committed BP to burning a billion quid before they have even sent an ecologist out on a trawler to count how many birds their new windfarms are going to kill.

According to BEIS (same Reuters story), offshore wind is going to be costing as little as £47/MWh by 2030. That seems to be a tad optimistic. Especially as it looks like BP are going to be paying £35/MWh JUST TO LEASE THE SEABED. And they have to somehow recoup the billion quid they’ve paid merely to get in the game.

Despite the high lease fees, CFD prices could continue to fall as developers combine the latest technology and supply chain savings with economies of scale, and if the cost of capital continues to drop, Duncan Clark, Head of UK Region at Orsted, told Reuters Events.

If the cost of capital continues to drop? It’s basically free now, so unless he thinks people are going to pay him to hold their money, I don’t see it getting cheaper. I predict that CfD prices will stay low, but that windfarm owners will back out of them tout de suite because the wholesale leccy prices will by then be into arm/leg territory. (As mentioned previously, I do not know what the break clauses are like re: CfD contracts. One suspects that as soon as wholesale > strike price, the owners will drop them like a handful of bees.)

The European Union aims to install almost 50 GW of new offshore wind capacity by 2030 to reach a total capacity of 60 GW.

Gawd help our feathered friends (more on which anon).

Now over to Sky (who can afford a subscription to The Times, seemingly) who noted that BP’s hoped-for profits might not entirely materialise:

An un-named executive at another established offshore wind operator told The Times that the price BP and its partner were paying was “ridiculous” and raised doubts that the 8-10% return on the investment promised by Mr Looney [BP’s sane Chief Executive] was achievable. The executive told The Times: “They will be lucky if they can even make 2%.”

(Aside: Remember the net profit we saw with Dudgeon at >30%?)

Sky also observed that:

In total, the Crown Estate will receive just under £879m a year for the next four years for the leases, a total of £3.515bn.

A quarter of the Crown Estate’s money will be sent to Liz to spend on corgis etc (about £220 million a year). This arrangement has a nicely historical feel about it. BP spends an astronomical sum on a seabed lease. HRH gets a quarter of it. In order to make the promised 8-10% return on its investment, BP will have to suck vast quantities of money out of the poorest in the UK via their leccy bills. We like our Queen: just as well, really. (I hope she mentions it at COP 26.) When King Charles III is the recipient of all this dosh, he will stop banging on about climate change, recognising the bad taste of this apparent conflict of interest.

Overall, to the untrained eye, it all looks a lot like BP is taking a desperate gamble in order to get some sort of position in the energy of the future, or the past, or the energy of never that is nevertheless the energy of now because of a tidal wave of free cash, hoping that the flood will continue for the next half century or so.

Unfortunately, if BP’s gamble comes off, it would seem to be bad news for the UK’s electricity bill payers.

Earlier pieces in this occasional series:

The Saudi Arabia of Wind

In High Dudgeon

18 Comments

  2. Very sad to see an Icon British Company like BP completely shafted by the Globalist Cabal without putting up much of a fight… none of the corporations seem to have the stomach for it. I heard a squeak out of Volkswagen top brass a year ago complaining about the stupidity of banning ICE cars but that has been about it. Rolls Royce have got a cracking product with the SMR but can’t seem to take on the anti nuke brigade and don’t seem to be invited to COP26. Globalist money has been sprayed across the Globe to key strategic and influencing power holders and one can only assume that a lot of top dogs in Corporations have trousered their retirement fund, leaving their ships holed below the water line. The SNP have waved goodbye North Sea Oil and Gas, their country’s most important asset after Whiskey, revelling in their virtue signalling idiocy. Climate change is a very juicy scam to suck wealth from the poorest to the richest using utility bills and enforced home improvements. At the end of the day, it is all summed up by the WEF whizzy slogan; “you will own nothing but will be happy”. When will they start putting something exciting into the jabs, or are they a direct trip to heaven?

    Like

  3. So I wonder if any of the “decision makers ” have some insight on the wisdom of feeding crocodiles?

    Like

  4. Jit,

    Many thanks for doing the number-crunching. Having reflected on what you write, it certainly seems to me that the numbers don’t add up for BP. Is this expensive virtue-signalling (aka marketing) in an attempt to get the fossil-fuel company haters off their backs? Is it bad business? Or – as you suggest, and as I fear – is it just very bad news for the long-suffering British energy consumer and the avian community?

    Like

  5. JIT – “whereas the BP-EnBW lots are in the Irish Sea: see featured image”

    Yeah, that little island shown is where I live (isle of man).

    lots 4,5 & 6 to look forward to, the ferry crossing will be like a slalom!!!

    Like

  7. Current UK wholesale power prices are 85 GBP/ Mwh for winter 22/23, up 30 GBP from when this tender result was announced. Prompt is well over 100. The carbon price has doubled in this time.

    Like

  8. It also bears mentioning that the RWE block is much farther offshore than BPs which poses material technical and economic challenges.

    The european ratepayer has much to fear from this trend, no doubt but also from the astronomical cost of coal and gas (the latter is up over tenfold from last years lows! 50 euros vs 3 in May 2020!!) Coal has tripled.

    Bumper year for the many hedge funds charging into the emissions markets.

    Like

  9. An interesting article on Big Oil’s pivot to wind:

    https://www.energyflux.news/p/big-oils-painful-offshore-wind-pivot

    Competition for prime acreage is rife, resulting in some questionable bids. BP faced accusations that it overpaid in the UK’s latest leasing round.

    And on the other side of things:

    CfD auctions frequently clear at the minimum price, as occurred at a recent 1 GW Danish tender that saw companies draw lots in a tie-break.

    Spectacular reductions in auction prices have spawned a misleading narrative that this sector is becoming an attractive investment proposition for oil companies scrambling for a means to reduce emissions, remain relevant and keep ESG investors onside.

    Worth a read.

    Like

  10. The auction results for the next tranche of Scottish offshore windfarms will be revealed tomorrow. Will the likes of BP be throwing more crazy money at the Crown Estate (Scotland)?

    What is Scotwind?

    It is an auction of the rights to develop several sites in Scottish waters for offshore wind.

    The process is managed by Crown Estate Scotland (CES), which takes its lead from the Scottish government, which will receive the hundreds of millions of pounds in profits.

    I don’t think they’ve really thought this through, have they?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59980279

    Gawd ‘elp us, and gawd ‘elp the gannets.

    Like

  11. Isn’t it extraordinary how many pay lip service to the protection of the environment: businesses, councils and schools happily fell trees and in doing so destroy habitats for birds and insects and, with the shade and leaves gone, raise the temperature and that dastardly CO2. The same wilful approach is evident with off-shore wind farms, the terrible toll they take on migrating birds to say nothing of the creatures in the sea. It’s all such a terrible tragedy because CO2 is not the culprit here. Yet those who truly do protect the environment are treated with disdain and contempt.

    Like

  12. “BP agrees to sell US onshore wind business as it shifts back to oil

    Company to sell business for undisclosed sum to LS Power as part of plan to offload $20bn in assets”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/18/bp-agrees-to-sell-us-onshore-wind-business-oil

    BP has agreed a deal to sell off its onshore wind business in the US as the oil multinational turns its back on renewable energy after a failed attempt to go green.

    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. However, the value of the windfarms, nine of which are operated by BP, is understood to be lower than the $2bn (£1.5bn) valuation estimated for BP’s onshore wind business in the past.

    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….

    Liked by 1 person

  13. “BP to review oil and gas projects to boost profits”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2xg84yj6jo

    BP has said it “can and will do better” to develop and monetise its oil and gas production as the energy giant continues to shift away from renewables and back to fossil fuels.

    Chief executive Murray Auchincloss said the UK-based firm would review how it manages its oil and gas assets and will consider cost cutting plans to boost returns for shareholders.

    The pledge comes after the company revealed it has made its largest oil and gas discovery this century off the coast of Brazil.

    BP has been under ongoing pressure from investors for underperforming compared to its rivals in recent years.

    In February, BP slashed its planned investments in renewable energy projects and said it would spend billions of dollars more a year on its oil and gas operations in a bid to improve investor confidence….

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Mark – thanks for the link. Partial quote –

    “Mike Tholen, of trade body Offshore Energies UK, said: “Redevelopment of decommissioned fields is now a feature of the North Sea as new and innovative technologies make such opportunities possible. “Looking ahead, the independent Climate Change Committee says the UK will need 13 billion to 15 billion barrels by 2050 come what may. We could produce half of this at home. But at the moment only four billion barrels are on track to be realised, which means imports will have to rise and the UK economy will miss out as jobs and capital move overseas.””

    ps – the comments under the article run to 1301. Just picked 1 most liked –

    “Jasper Derbyshire 1 day ago – Miliband and his acolytes are detached from reality. Their analyses of the economics of energy and the physics of the climate are based on emotion, not on science or economics. They are certainly not fit to be running the energy policy of a 21st century industrial economy. I wouldn’t trust them to run a bath.”

    You are not alone on this site to oppose this lunacy.

    Like

  16. IIRC, prof. Dieter Helm, the energy economist, wrote in his book ‘The Carbon Crunch’ (2015 revised edition) words to the effect that “Economic illiteracy is at the heart of the climate policy nonsense. And current renewables technology will not cut it either.”

    More recently (March 2025) prof. Helm has written, “If asked why the cost of energy to the energy-intensive industries in the UK is the highest in the industrial world, the Secretary of State would no doubt point to the “high and volatile gas prices”. In doing so, he should perhaps think a little more: other countries use gas too, but their prices are lower.” (https://dieterhelm.co.uk/publications/defence-and-the-retreat-from-net-zero/)

    So, the economics of Net Zero et al. is a dog’s breakfast. What about its engineering aspects, notably the energy efficiency of current renewables technologies? Well, as David Turver has reported (based on work by Weissbach et al. a decade ago), the Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) of current renewables is unacceptably low for a developed economy hoping to use them in its electricity grid (https://davidturver.substack.com/p/why-eroei-matters?utm_source=publication-search)

    In short, both their economics and energy efficiency make current renewables technology totally unsuitable for grid applications in a modern economy. The UK needs to completely change its energy policies or further ruin its economy. Regards, John C.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. “BP names new boss as current CEO leaves after less than two years”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq60jq125ljo

    …Ms O’Neill’s appointment comes as BP is cutting its renewable energy investments and instead focusing on increasing oil and gas production.

    In February, the energy giant said it would shift its strategy following pressure from some investors who were frustrated that its profits and share price had lagged behind rivals.

    Rivals Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have also scaled back plans to invest in green energy and US President Donald Trump’s call to “drill baby drill” has encouraged firms to invest in fossil fuels.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.