PTQ Q1 2026 Issue

Comparison of involvement in renewable energy and biofuels by major global integrated and refining firms

Company

Fuel

Bio-diesel Renewable SAF

E-fuels

Blue

Green

Alternative

name

ethanol

diesel

hydrogen

hydrogen bunker fuels

Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia)

      

  

      



 

ExxonMobil (US)

 (Low-carbon)

 

Shell (UK)



     

Sinopec (China) Chevron (US)

  

TotalEnergies (France)

 

bp (UK)

ConocoPhillips (US) Gazprom (Russia) Equinor (Norway) Petrobras (Brazil)

 (Natural)



 

   

 

Eni (Italy)



Marathon Petroleum (US)

Phillips 66 (US)



 

Reliance Industries (India)



Valero Energy (US)



Table 1

Table 1 compares the renewable energy and biofuel activ- ities currently undertaken by major integrated and refining companies in the world. The imperative of flexible strategies in uncertain times Based on news announcements over the last 12-18 months, a significant number of refinery-related green pro - jects, specifically those focused on biofuels, hydrogen, and carbon capture, have been either cancelled or put on hold globally. This trend is driven by high capital costs, market uncertainty, and changing corporate strategies, as well as shifting governmental policies. In the US, numerous decarbonisation projects, includ- ing those for CCUS and clean/green hydrogen production refining facilities, were derailed by policy shifts. The US Department of Energy (DOE) cancelled funding for dozens of these projects in mid-2025, which included significant awards for ExxonMobil’s clean hydrogen project and var- ious large CCS initiatives. While these were not all tradi- tional ‘refinery’ projects, they represent a major pullback in alternative fuels and decarbonisation investment, primarily tied to broader policy and funding changes. In Europe, major oil companies have backed away from flagship biofuel initiatives. Shell cancelled its Rotterdam biofuels plant (The Netherlands), a project intended to be one of Europe’s largest producers of sustainable avia- tion fuel (SAF) and renewable diesel (HVO). The decision, announced in September 2025, followed a pause in con- struction and was attributed to the facility being ‘insuffi - ciently competitive’ due to market dynamics and spiralling completion costs. Similarly, bp decided not to proceed with previously planned biofuel production units at its refinery sites in Cherry Point, US, and Lingen, Germany. Similar difficulties in scaling up capital-intensive clean energy infrastructure have been reported outside of North America and Europe. In the Asia-Pacific region, several major projects have been scrapped: • Shell shelved a planned SAF plant on its Bukom Island

facility in Singapore in March 2023, citing a review of capi- tal priorities. • In Australia, the future of ‘blue’ hydrogen took a major hit as key partners, including Kawasaki Heavy Industries, reportedly withdrew from the hydrogen energy supply chain (HESC) trial in the Latrobe Valley. The project, which relied on producing hydrogen from brown coal with asso- ciated CCS, was destabilised by procurement delays, high costs, and doubts over the long-term viability of the carbon capture component. • Additional hydrogen-related ventures in Australia, such as projects by Origin Energy (Newcastle) and Woodside Energy (Tasmania), were also formally withdrawn in late 2024. These global examples confirm that the difficulties in scaling up capital-intensive green initiatives, from feed- stock availability and high construction costs to market uncertainty and policy instability, are challenging the energy transition across all major global regions. In the current era of rapid energy transition and geopo- litical volatility, flexible strategies are essential for refiners to navigate uncertainty, mitigate risk, and capitalise on emerging opportunities. This flexibility must be woven into investment choices, operational planning, and external engagement. Navigating the complex transformation of refineries into integrated fuels and energy hubs requires a multifaceted and strategic approach. This section outlines key pathways and strategies that refiners can adopt to overcome chal - lenges and capitalise on emerging opportunities. Phased approach: gradual transformation rather than immediate overhaul Given the huge capital intensity, operational complexity, and long asset lifecycles of refineries, a phased approach to transformation is often more pragmatic and less disruptive than an immediate, wholesale overhaul. This allows refiners to: • De-risk investments : By implementing changes incre- mentally, refiners can test new technologies at a smaller

PTQ Q1 2026