In a bold pivot that echoes the incoming Trump administration’s emphasis on energy dominance and deregulation, ExxonMobil has announced a significant reduction in its low-carbon investments, slashing spending by a third from $30 billion to $20 billion over the 2025-2030 period.
This move redirects capital toward the company’s core oil and gas operations, prioritizing high-return projects amid steady oil prices around $65 per barrel and record U.S. production levels. The strategy is projected to generate $145 billion in cumulative surplus cash flow, focusing on LNG expansion, Permian Basin drilling, and offshore developments in Guyana to meet global energy demands while boosting shareholder value.
This retreat from ESG-driven initiatives aligns seamlessly with President Trump’s energy policies, which prioritize affordable and abundant domestic energy production as a cornerstone of national security, potentially accelerating a broader industry shift away from subsidized green ventures.
ExxonMobil’s decision comes at a time when the political landscape in Washington is undergoing a dramatic transformation. With Trump’s return to the White House, expectations are high for rollbacks on federal incentives for renewables and a renewed focus on fossil fuels. The company’s leadership has cited the need to concentrate on ventures with proven profitability, especially as low-carbon projects like hydrogen have faced spiraling costs and market uncertainties.
For instance, ExxonMobil has halted development on one of the world’s largest planned low-carbon hydrogen facilities, blaming insufficient federal support.
This pragmatic approach not only safeguards investor returns but also positions the firm to capitalize on deregulated environments that could expedite permitting for oil and gas projects.
Broader Industry Trend: Other Majors Follow Suit
ExxonMobil is far from alone in this strategic realignment. Throughout 2025, several major oil companies have scaled back their low-carbon ambitions, redirecting resources toward fossil fuel expansion amid anti-ESG backlash, policy instability, and economic pressures.
European giants, in particular, have led the charge in backtracking on climate pledges.BP: The company has slashed over $5 billion in planned renewable investments while ramping up oil and gas production targets to 2.4 million barrels per day by 2030.
BP has also reduced its annual low-carbon spending from $4 billion to just $800 million by 2027, abandoned its 10 GW renewable capacity goal for 2030, and increased fossil fuel output projections, exceeding International Energy Agency (IEA) net-zero scenarios by over 50%.
Additionally, BP has slowed its planned reductions in oil and gas investments, pivoting toward LNG and biofuels while exiting a major green hydrogen project in Australia.
Shell: Shell has dropped its Renewables & Energy Solutions investment share from 19% in 2025 to 9% through 2030, while planning a 1% annual increase in oil and gas production—surpassing IEA net-zero trajectories by more than 20%.
The firm has abandoned its previous oil production reduction targets and canceled a hydrogen facility in Norway due to market unreadiness.
Shell is also reducing overall renewable targets as part of a broader fossil fuel boost.
Equinor: Norway’s state-owned energy firm has paused blue hydrogen efforts and reduced its 2030 renewable capacity target from 12-16 GW to 10-12 GW.
Equinor has scrapped its goal of allocating 50% of investments to renewables and low-carbon power by 2030, instead upwardly revising production targets that exceed net-zero paths by over 50%.
Like others, it has scaled back renewable commitments.
TotalEnergies and Eni:
TotalEnergies has decreased its integrated power and low-carbon molecules investment share from 33% to 26% by 2030, maintaining a highly carbon-intensive energy mix with renewables under 10%.
Eni has cut planned renewable investments by nearly 25%, from €1.8 billion to €1.4 billion annually through 2028.
Repsol: While maintaining 19% of investments in renewables, Repsol has not reduced oil and gas production, keeping levels over 50% above net-zero requirements.
This widespread retreat is exemplified by the cancellation or shelving of nearly 60 major low-carbon hydrogen projects in 2025 alone, involving players like BP and ExxonMobil, due to escalating costs, policy uncertainty, and absent buyers.
Globally, green hydrogen developers—including oil majors—have trimmed ambitions as the fuel remains three times costlier than natural gas, with only a fraction of planned European projects expected online by 2030 against ambitious targets.
Seven out of eight largest oil firms are expanding fossil extraction, potentially locking in high emissions for decades.
The anti-ESG movement, fueled by U.S. political shifts and legal challenges, has made low-carbon ventures riskier, prompting firms to favor shorter-term, high-return fossil projects over uncertain green transitions.
What Should Investors Look For?As oil majors refocus on their traditional strengths, investors should monitor several key indicators to gauge long-term value:Core Business Performance: Watch for increased capital allocation to high-margin areas like shale, offshore, and LNG. Companies projecting surplus cash flows, such as Exxon’s $145 billion target, signal strong dividend sustainability and buyback programs.
Policy Tailwinds: Under Trump’s administration, anticipate faster permitting, reduced regulations, and potential tax incentives for domestic production. Investors should track executive orders or legislation that could boost U.S. output and profitability.
Financial Metrics: Prioritize firms with robust balance sheets, low debt, and consistent shareholder returns. Rising oil prices or stable demand could amplify earnings, but volatility remains a risk—look for hedging strategies.
ESG Reversal Risks: While retreating from green projects may improve short-term returns, investors should assess exposure to future carbon taxes or international regulations that could penalize high emitters.
Diversification Balance: Even in retreat, some low-carbon exposure (e.g., biofuels) might hedge against energy transition risks. Evaluate how companies like BP are selectively maintaining certain green assets.
Overall, this shift could reward patient investors focused on energy security and profitability over speculative green bets.
Is This Move Good for Consumers and Investors?
For consumers, the pivot back to oil and gas could be a boon in the near term. Increased U.S. and global production is likely to enhance supply, potentially stabilizing or lowering energy prices amid geopolitical tensions and demand growth. Trump’s policies emphasizing “energy dominance” aim to reduce reliance on foreign imports, bolstering national security and affordability for households and industries reliant on cheap fuel.
For investors, the retreat appears favorable, as low-carbon projects have often delivered underwhelming returns due to high costs and immature markets. By concentrating on proven oil and gas assets, companies can generate higher free cash flows, supporting dividends and stock repurchases—key drivers of shareholder value. However, long-term risks persist if global decarbonization accelerates, potentially stranding assets. In the current climate, though, this realignment positions oil majors for resilience and growth in a fossil-friendly policy era.
Sources: blackmon.substack.com, senecaesg.com, ehn.org, carbonbrief.org
Want to get your story in front of our massive audience? Get a media Kit Here. Please help us help you grow your business in Energy.
Be the first to comment