Shell, the oil company that recently trumpeted its commitment to a low
carbon future by signing a pre-Bali conference communique, has quietly
sold off most of its solar business.
The move, taken with rival BP's decision last week to invest in the world's
dirtiest oil production in Canada's tar sands, indicates that Big Oil
might be giving up its flirtation with renewables and going back to its roots.
Shell and BP are among the biggest producers of greenhouse gases in the
world, but both have been keen to paint themselves green through a series
of clean fuel initiatives.
BP, under its former chief executive, John Browne, promised to go "beyond
petroleum" while Shell has spent millions advertising its serious interest in
the future of the environment.
But at a time when interest in solar power is greater than ever, with the
world's first "solar city" being built at Phoenix, Arizona, a small
announcement from Environ Energy Global of Singapore revealed that it
had bought Shell's photovoltaic operations in India and Sri Lanka, with more
than 260 staff and 28 offices, for an undisclosed sum.
The sell-off, to be followed by similar ones in the Philippines and
Indonesia, comes after another major disposal executed in a low-key way last year, when Shell hived off its solar module production business. The division, with 600 staff and manufacturing plants in the US, Canada and Germany, went
to Munich-based SolarWorld. Shell has however formed a manufacturing
link, with Saint-Gobain, and promised to build one plant in Germany.
The Anglo-Dutch oil group confirmed yesterday that it had pulled out of its
rural business in India and Sri Lanka, saying it was not making enough
"It was not bringing in any profit for us there so we transferred it to
another operator. The buyer will be able to take it to the next level," said a
spokeswoman at Shell headquarters in London.
The oil group said it was continuing to move its renewables interests into a
mainstream business and hoped to find one new power source that would
"achieve materiality" for it. Shell continues to invest in a number of
wind farm schemes, such as the London Array offshore scheme, which has
government approval. Shell has also been concentrating its efforts on
biofuels, but declined to say whether it had given up on solar power even
though many smaller rivals continue to believe the technology has a bright
Environmental groups have always accused Shell of using clean energy
initiatives as "greenwash" to deflect criticism from its core carbon
operations, especially tar sands. The latest pull-out has annoyed rival
business leaders at London-based Solar Century and local Indian operation,
Orb Energy, who fear the impact of a high-profile company selling off solar
business. Jeremy Leggett, chief executive of Solarcentury and a leading
voice in renewable energy circles, said Shell was undermining the credibility
of the business world in its fight against global warming.
"Shell and Solar Century were among the 150 companies that recently
signed up to the hard-hitting Bali Declaration. It is vital that companies
act consistently with the rhetoric in such declarations, and as I have told Shell
senior management on several occasions, an all-out assault on the
Canadian tar sands and extracting oil from coal is completely inconsistent
with climate protection.
"This latest evidence of half-heartedness or worse in Shell's renewables
activities leaves me even more disappointed. Unless fossil-fuel energy
companies evolve their core activities meaningfully, we are in deep trouble,"
Damian Miller, former director of Shell Solar's rural operations and now
chief executive of Orb Energy, said Shell was missing an opportunity by pulling
out at a time when renewables markets were starting to mature in the
developing world. He alleged some customers were complaining of being
abandoned by Shell and worried about the servicing of equipment they could
expect from Environ. "We see former Shell customers who are highly
disappointed not to be receiving proper service for the solar systems they
have invested in. These customers have often invested 20-30% of their
annual income in a system to ensure they have some minimum amount of
lighting and access to radio, TV, or a fan," said Miller.
He added that the oil majors, including Shell, had invested time and energy
in promoting their plans for renewable energy in the press and on TV, but
were not able to lead the transformation the world needs towards renewable
energy and energy efficient solutions.
Shell declined to comment on these criticisms or talk about where its
priorities lay. But the chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, did make a
number of comments last summer which could have paved the way for a
change in policy. Alternative energy sources such as renewables will not fill
the gap, he argued, forecasting that even with technological breakthroughs
they could give supply only 30% of global energy by the middle of the
century. "Contrary to public perceptions, renewable energy is not the silver
bullet that will soon solve all our problems," he said.
Meanwhile, BP has been accused by Greenpeace Canada of lining itself up
to help commit "the biggest environmental crime in history". This follows its
decision to swap assets with Husky Oil, giving it an entrance ticket to the
Alberta tar sands, which are said to be five times more energy-intensive to
extract compared to traditional oil.
John Browne, the group's former chief executive, had said BP would not
follow Shell into tar sands as he established an alternative energy division
and pledged to take the group "beyond petroleum." The new boss, Tony
Hayward, has pointed the corporate supertanker in a new direction although
his public relations minders insist BP remains committed to exploring the
potential of renewables.
"Tony Hayward has been part of the management team at BP for many
years and has endorsed the low-carbon strategy that involved BP creating
its alternative energy business late in 2005. We are spending $8bn (£4bn)
over ten years and are pressing ahead with 450 megawatts of wind
production capacity in the US," said a spokesman. "The tar sands deal in
Canada does not represent a change in direction, it was just a very good
opportunity which represents a broadening of the portfolio."
Greenpeace climate campaigner Joss Garman said: "If Shell is to survive
the climate change age... it needs to become not just an oil company but an
energy company. One wonders if Shell's executives have noticed what's
happening in Bali or if we'll see slick adverts on TV boasting about their
retreat from renewables. Probably not."
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.