Mining giant Fortescue says Big Oil is getting it wrong on renewables

Australian mining tycoon Andrew Forrest, founder and executive chairman of Fortescue, says Big Oil is getting it wrong on renewables — at a time when European energy majors are doubling down on fossil fuels to boost near-term shareholder returns.

Britain’s BP and Norway’s Equinor have both recently outlined plans to slash renewable spending in favor of oil and gas. London-listed Shell, meanwhile, has also scaled back green investment plans.

U.S. oil majors such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron, which have outperformed their European rivals in recent years, have typically advocated for transition options such as carbon capture and storage and hydrogen, rather than for renewable technologies like wind and solar.

“I’ve always found that the customer is always right, which is why we’re going renewable and moving away from oil and gas because our customers are saying, ‘we want energy but not at any cost, and if you can give us green energy at the same price as dirty [energy] then we are going to buy green every day.’ That’s my job, and that’s Fortescue’s job,” Forrest told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Monday.

“You’ve got data centers popping up all over Europe and they want green energy if they can get it. They’ll take dirty [energy] if they can’t, sure. That’s Exxon Mobil’s and Total‘s argument, ‘well, we’re just doing what the customers want.’ Actually, you’re not. Your customers want green energy,” Forrest said.

“Well, if [the] oil and gas [industry] doesn’t want to supply green energy, guess what, Fortescue will,” he added.

Fortescue, which is the world’s fourth-largest iron ore miner, has outlined plans to stop burning fossil fuels across its Australian iron ore operations by the end of the decade — and urged other hard-to-abate companies to follow suit.

Spokespeople at Exxon Mobil and TotalEnergies were not immediately available to comment when contacted by CNBC on Monday.

Last year, Exxon Mobil said that it expects fossil fuels to make up more than half the world’s energy mix in 2050 despite efforts to transition away from oil and gas. TotalEnergies, meanwhile, has been something of an outlier among its European peers, continuously investing in low-carbon technologies as it pursues a “multi-energy” offering.

Lindsey Stewart, director of investment stewardship research and policy at Morningstar Sustainalytics, on Monday said that it appears as though the majority of shareholders in the energy supermajors “have decided that cash is king, at least in the short term.”

“They’ve gotten used to a steady stream of cash in the form of dividends and share buybacks over recent years and they appear to want management to prioritise cash in the short term over longer term energy transition goals,” Stewart told CNBC via email.

“Management at some of the European companies, BP and Shell in particular, have responded by reducing intended investments in capital intensive renewables projects in favour of unlocking cash from fossil fuel assets. None of which is good news for those seeking an accelerated, orderly transition toward lower carbon energy sources,” he added.

Separately, Espen Erlingsen, head of upstream research at Rystad Energy, said European oil giants like Shell, BP and Equinor had “increasingly aligned their strategies” with those of their American counterparts in recent years.

“As a result, the energy transition is unlikely to be driven by the large oil and gas firms. Instead, it will likely be regional, power-focused companies that lead the way,” Erlingsen said.

Asked about how he feels about the trend of U.S. corporates backtracking on environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals, Fortescue’s Forrest said these decisions reflect a push to prioritize quarterly earnings targets and executive bonuses over future success.

“It’s very short-term thinking to pull back on climate goals because guess who’s not listening to you, guess who doesn’t care, guess who’s much more powerful than you, than the U.S. administration [or] anyone who might be in the White House or not — it’s the climate itself,” Forrest said.

“I don’t mind all the talk about ‘drill, baby, drill.’ That’s if you want to make a difference in 20 years. But if you want to make a difference in 20 weeks or 20 months, renewable energy and where we’re going is going to make that difference,” Forrest said.

Forrest said Monday that Fortescue intends to save as much as $1.2 billion a year by switching to green energy, noting that this figure represents the firm’s annual fossil fuel costs at present.

These savings will help to establish a green energy company “that will serve us and others for generations to come,” Forrest said, adding that the creation of new and more efficient sustainable technologies will then be used to support other businesses.

Fortescue’s Forrest has previously called for policymakers to move away from the “proven fantasy” of net-zero emissions by 2050 and instead embrace real-zero by 2050.

Scientists have repeatedly pushed for rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to stop global average temperatures rising. These calls have continued through an alarming run of temperature records, with the planet registering its hottest year in human history in 2024.

Extreme temperatures are fueled by the climate crisis, the chief driver of which is the burning of fossil fuels.