Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Orsted’

Ørsted investors worried about Equinor’s change in emphasis. Implications for US wind leases?

Posted in Norway, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , on May 1, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Equinor’s Atlantic wind leases

Equinor has cut planned investments in renewable energy by roughly EUR 3.5bn for 2026–2027, while the company maintains and expects growth in oil and gas production.

Cheap shot from panicked Ørsted investor:

“From a sustainability perspective, it’s certainly sad that one of the most ‘green’ fossil fuel companies now turns out to have merely been a ‘tourist’ in the green sector, but unfortunately, that’s just the way things are these days,” says Anders Schelde, investment chief at AkademikerPension, according to Finans.

Perhaps the premium for climate virtue signaling has shrunk, and Equinor, like other energy giants, is making a prudent business decision for its shareholders, which include the Norwegian govt.

Meanwhile, what are the implications for Equinor’s offshore wind investments in the US? Equinor’s embattled Empire Wind project is probably too far along to reverse course. Their Central Atlantic (Lease 0557) and California (Lease 0563, Atlas Wind) may be a different story. However, buyback negotiations would be complicated by the Empire Wind situation, and perhaps by the Norwegian government’s 2/3 ownership. On the other hand, Equinor is a significant oil and gas leaseholder in the Gulf of America, so they would have ample options for investing wind lease rebates.

Read Full Post »

Judge Lamberth again rules in favor of Revolution Wind

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , on January 14, 2026| Leave a Comment »

See the attached order. This is the second time that Judge Lamberth has ordered the lifting of a shutdown order for this project. As we previously concluded:

Orsted has a lease contract, and no matter where you stand on offshore wind, you have to have a compelling case to halt a project that is in the advanced stages of development. 

gov.uscourts.dcd.284486.63.0_2Download

Read Full Post »

Orsted files supplemental complaint in response to second Revolution Wind stop work order

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , , on January 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »

Attached is the supplemental complaint in the lawsuit Revolution Wind, LLC v. United States Department of the Interior, Case No. 1:25-cv-02999-RCL, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Brief history:

gov.uscourts.dcd.284486.47.1Download

Read Full Post »

Victory for Orsted or temporary reprieve?

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , on September 22, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Judge Royce Lamberth granted an injunction allowing Orsted to resume work on the Revolution Wind project. BOEM halted work on the project one month ago.

Read Full Post »

Was MOU with California prudent for Denmark?

Posted in California, climate, energy policy, tagged , , , , , on September 19, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Gov. Newsom and Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen

As is the case for most MOUs, the attached 8/22/2025 agreement between California and Denmark is long on promotion and short on substance. No funds are obligated and there are no work commitments.

The MOU made sense for Gov. Newsom in that he strengthened his green credentials by aligning with the country that is the spiritual leader for climate activists.

The benefits for Denmark were unclear, but the risks should have been apparent. The White House is fundamentally opposed to the climate and energy objectives identified in the MOU. Ørsted (50.1% govt owned) and other Danish business interests are very much dependent on decisions made by the US Federal govt.

Work on Ørsted’s Revolution Wind project has been halted by Interior Secretary Burgum. His decision is being challenged in court, but no matter what the outcome, offshore wind development will be difficult for Ørsted and other foreign companies going forward. The Secretary has broad regulatory authority under the OCS Lands Act, under which there is no such thing as “a fully permitted project.”

Meanwhile, California’s green status has taken a hit with the passage of S 237, which pragmatically authorizes new onshore drilling.

Lastly, as the chart below illustrates, Orsted’s problems didn’t begin in 2025.

CA Denmark MOUDownload

Read Full Post »

Equinor ups its Ørsted ante. Good money after bad or shrewd contrarian investment?

Posted in Norway, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , on September 1, 2025| 1 Comment »

Equinor (2/3 Norwegian govt owned) is increasing its position in Ørsted (50.1% Danish govt owned). Given the ownership structure, public money is at risk for both countries.

The comments below are from a DN Norway article. They were made by CEO Torgrim Reitan after Equinor announced that the company will contribute NOK 10 billion (USD 1 billion) in Ørsted’s special share offering.

Given that the value of their initial NOK 26 billion (USD 2.6 billion) investment in Ørsted last fall has almost been cut in half, this is a bold move by Equinor. The company has been sharply criticized for its wind investments by private Norwegian investors.

“We want a closer partnership with Ørsted. We are two leading companies in offshore wind, and we believe a closer collaboration could create significant value for both Ørsted’s and our own shareholders.”

“This industry is now going through its first real crisis. That makes it quite clear what’s needed. We know a lot about this from oil and gas. What often happens in such times is consolidation.”

“We want a closer partnership with Ørsted. We are two leading companies in offshore wind, and we believe a closer collaboration could create significant value for both Ørsted’s and our own shareholders.”

“In recent weeks, we’ve had conversations with Ørsted management, and we’ve also had conversations with the Danish state. But the discussions have primarily been with Ørsted.”

“Ørsted is in a difficult situation right now. For us, as an industrial and long-term owner, it’s important to be supportive and helpful in such a situation. That’s why we’re putting in nearly a billion dollars.”

“This is a difficult decision, because clearly a lot of equity capital needs to be raised, but we have a fundamental belief in the industry, and also in the company. Ørsted’s underlying portfolio is a strong one.”

“Going forward, this will increase our debt ratio somewhat—maybe by about two percentage points. But we’re starting from a very low debt ratio. So we can manage this within our financial framework. As for capital distribution in 2026 and beyond, we will remain competitive.”

Meanwhile, Equinor is the only major oil company that remains invested in US offshore wind energy. Equinor’s Empire Wind project continues to be highly divisive.

Read Full Post »

Letter from BOEM to Ørsted

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on August 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The Revolution Wind shutdown order is attached. The letter cites concerns about national security and interference with other offshore activities.

Excerpt from Ørsted’s response:

“Ørsted is evaluating all options to resolve the matter expeditiously. This includes engagement with relevant permitting agencies for any necessary clarification or resolution as well as through potential legal proceedings, with the aim being to proceed with continued project construction towards COD in the second half of 2026.”

Director'sOrder-20250822Download

Read Full Post »

BOEM halts activity on Ørsted’s Revolution Wind project!

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , on August 22, 2025| Leave a Comment »

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is halting activity on the Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut. No details on this decision have been provided.

According to Ørsted, all of Revolution Wind’s foundations and almost 70 per cent of the turbines have been installed.

Revolution Wind is a partnership between Ørsted and Global Infrastructure Partners’ Skyborn Renewables.

Related post from last week.

Read Full Post »

S&P downgrades Orsted’s credit rating. Will BOEM require supplemental financial assurance?

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , on August 15, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Following the announced $9 billion rights offering to shore up its finances, Orsted’s long-term issuer credit rating has been downgraded to BBB- by S&P, just one step above junk.

Will BOEM now require decommissioning financial assurance pursuant to 30 CFR § 585.517(b)?

§ 585.517 How will BOEM determine the supplemental financial assurance associated with commercial leases?

(b) If your cumulative potential obligations and liabilities increase or decrease, we may adjust the amount of the supplemental financial assurance.

Read Full Post »

Ørsted’s troubles and Atlantic wind decommissioning

Posted in decommissioning, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 14, 2025| 1 Comment »

Ørsted’s stock price plummeted on Monday following the announcement of a $9.4 billion rights issue to fund the Sunrise Wind project. The share price has remained depressed (chart below).

Also, although Ørsted attributes its financial woes to the change in US policies, it’s apparent in the second chart (5 year trend) that the decline in Ørsted’s valuation has been ongoing since 2021.

In March, Fitch downgraded Ørsted’s rating to BBB from BBB+, and its subordinated rating to BB+ from BBB-. Further downgrades would seem to be a distinct possibility.

Meanwhile, decommissioning financing for the 3 Ørsted projects under construction in the US Atlantic is far from assured:

  • Revolution Wind: As they did for Vineyard Wind, BOEM approved Ørsted’s request to defer full decommissioning financial assurance until 15 years after the beginning of construction (see attached letter). This approval was prior to the Renewable Energy Modernization Rule (effective June 29, 2024), which eliminated the need for such waivers.
  • Sunrise Wind: Ørsted is now solely responsible for funding and constructing this project given the company’s failure to find investment partners. Presumably, decommissioning financial assurance was not required given BOEM’s latitude under the so-called “Modernization Rule.”
  • South Fork Wind: As is the case with Sunrise Wind, BOEM presumably allowed Ørsted to defer financial assurance for decommissioning as permitted by the “Modernization Rule.”

According to Ørsted, almost 70% of the turbines are installed at Revolution Wind and the first foundations have been installed at Sunrise Wind. South Fork Wind, 12 turbines and an offshore substation, is complete.

Given Ørsted’s strained finances, will BOEM now opt to require decommissioning assurance as provided for in 30 CFR § 585.517?

Ørsted’s situation is atypical in that the Danish government owns a majority (50.1%) stake in the company and Equinor, which is 2/3 Norwegian govt owned, holds a 9.8% stake. How will government ownership factor into BOEM decisions regarding decommissioning assurance? Note that Norwegian govt lobbying may have been one of the factors influencing the decision to allow the resumption of construction on Equinor’s Empire Wind project.

Meanwhile, two Danish opposition parties are calling for the state to relinquish its ownership stake in Ørsted.

REV_0486_Fin Assur Decom Departure Appr LtrDownload

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »