Western and Alaskan mineral exploration is key to American defense, security and resurgence

Paul Driessen

President Trump is determined to make America not just energy self-sufficient, but energy dominant. The USA already produces more oil and gas than any other nation, and he intends to unleash its full potential – for energy and for petrochemical feedstocks for 6,000+ pharmaceutical, plastic, paint, fabric, cosmetic and other products. As he puts it, “Drill, baby, drill!”

Abundant, reliable, affordable energy is the lifeblood of modern industrial societies. But they also need hundreds of metals and minerals, because nothing can be manufactured or grown, and no wells can be drilled, without them. That’s why the President has also launched similar initiatives for those treasure troves in Alaska and the Lower 48.

That call to action is “Mine, baby, mine!” and before that “Explore, baby, explore!”

The Stone Age didn’t end because our ancestors ran out of stones, nor the Bronze Age because they exhausted copper supplies. They ended because societies needed weapons and goods that were better, stronger, more durable – and innovators discovered iron substitutes, iron deposits and techniques for converting ores into finished products.

Indeed, every technological transformation throughout history required finding and mining previously unknown and unneeded metal and mineral deposits that suddenly became essential for progress.

Trump-47’s Executive Orders for drilling and mining – and ending offshore wind, Green New Deal and electric vehicle mandates, subsidies and programs – will dramatically reduce the need for millions of tons of copper, steel, cobalt, lithium, rare earths and other materials. However, they won’t end that need.

But now America can simply build more coal, gas and nuclear power plants – instead of 10,000 wind turbines and 10,000,000 solar panels, backed up by fossil-fuel generators … or huge battery warehouses like the one that recently became yet another conflagration in California.

However, today’s rapidly evolving server, artificial intelligence, aerospace, military and other technologies still mean we must find and produce materials that almost no one ever mined or even heard of until recently: rare earth elements, cobalt, lithium and scores of other critical strategic minerals.

China controls 60% of global rare earths production and processes 90% of it – including ores mined in the USA and other countries. It also controls cobalt and lithium production and processing, and almost all the processed graphite used in lithium-ion batteries for cell phones, EVs and grid-scale backup batteries.

That means the United States is dependent on this adversarial nation for numerous technologies; even Navy SEAL equipment requires 20+ minerals that are at least 50% imported, many from China.

This untenable situation was underscored last December, when China severely restricted exports of antimony, gallium and germanium, especially to the United States, because they are essential for both civilian and military technologies. The Middle Kingdom could block many more such exports, using exports as a weapon of diplomacy, extortion or war.

The situation makes no geologic sense either. The plate tectonic and geologic history of Alaska and the western states in particular have blessed America with countless, often enormous deposits of metals and minerals across the periodic table of elements. Some are well-known, while others have yet to be discovered, mapped or developed to serve changing, growing and increasingly strategic needs.

Even the 1964 Wilderness Act recognized this. Section 2 permits prospecting to gather information about mineral resources and requires “planned, recurring” mineral surveys, if those activities are conducted in a manner consistent with preserving “the wilderness environment.” There is no “end” date for this work.

Section 3 permitted mining claims and mineral leasing, exploration, drilling, roads, production, mechanized equipment, and other necessary operations and facilities, until midnight December 31, 1983. The only stipulation was that disturbed areas be reclaimed and restored “as near as practicable,” once mineral extraction had ceased.

However, federal bureaucrats ignored this clear language and stalled, stymied or prohibited all requests for permits to conduct such work, including recurring government mineral surveys and assessments.

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rupert Cutler’s comment to me in 1978 encapsulates their attitude, then and now. “I don’t think Congress should have enacted that provision,” he said. “But Congress did enact it, and you are obligated by your oath of office to follow the law the way it was written, not the way you think it should have been written,” I responded. Dr. Cutler simply walked away.

Successive generations of federal land managers – in consort with preservationists, courts, presidents and legislators – have banned or severely restricted even minimally intrusive exploration in huge wilderness, wilderness study, wildlife refuge, Antiquities Act, and even undesignated forests, deserts and grasslands –  regardless of critical national needs or clear legislative language.

National parks should be off-limits. In most cases, these other lands should not.

By 1994, when I helped prepare perhaps the last detailed analysis, mineral exploration and development had been banned in federal land areas equal to Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming combined. That’s 420 million acres – 19% of the USA; 66% of all federal/public lands.

It’s gotten “progressively” worse, even though processes unleashed by plate tectonics, volcanism and other forces created some of the most highly mineralized deposits in North America, and the world.

State and local legislators, regulators, judges and activists have treated non-federal lands the same way. Even world-class deposits have been deep-sixed, often on questionable grounds.

This cannot continue. These areas must be surveyed and explored by government agencies and private companies. Vital and high-quality deposits must be made available for mining, under sound environmental principles, to meet the requirements of current and future generations.

Failure to do so violates the most fundamental principles of national defense, national security, responsible government and societal need.

Alaska’s Pebble Mine prospect has an estimated 55 million tons of copper ore, 3.3 billion tons of molybdenum, plus other metals needed for wind turbines, solar panels, EVs and other technologies; yet Biden’s EPA rejected permit applications even before mining plans were submitted. Other world-class Alaskan deposits of copper, cobalt, zinc, titanium, gold, silver, zinc and other metals also sit in limbo.

Biden officials also reversed mining permits for the world’s largest copper-nickel deposit, in Minnesota, and President Biden himself banned all mining in 225,000 acres of the state’s Iron Range.

The fate of the Kings Mountain lithium deposit (possibly 5,000,000 tons of Li) in North Carolina is likewise uncertain, as is that of many other excellent prospects, even though modern US laws and technologies would ensure far better environmental practices than elsewhere worldwide.

Some concerns are certainly valid, others exaggerated, still others reflective of a determination to block mining anywhere in the USA, or even de-develop and de-industrialize America and the West.

However, environmental and other considerations must always be balanced against needs for critical metals, minerals and energy to sustain modern societies and living standards. Making America Great Again – and responding to today’s national security threats and needs – requires changing federal and state perspectives, policies and laws to recognize this. It’s a simple matter of reality and common sense.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — January 25, 2025

“I terminated the ridiculous and incredibly wasteful Green New Deal — I call it the “Green New Scam”; withdrew from the one-sided Paris climate accord; and ended the insane and costly electric vehicle mandate. We’re going to let people buy the car they want to buy.” (- Donald Trump, teleconference address to World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland)

The article from Bloomberg’s Green Daily, “Trump’s Climate Whiplash, came with the subtitle, “President Donald Trump’s nonstop stream of executive orders this week and what they mean for US climate progress.” The article follows verbatim given Trump’s immediate unmasking of climate alarm and reset from forced energy transformation. “Trump’s Week One ended with a heap of [seven] climate rollbacks,” Bloomberg Green began.

President Donald Trump wasted no time in laying the groundwork for a sweeping anti-climate agenda, signing a series of executive orders just hours after being sworn into office that seek to unravel former President Joe Biden’s policies and double down on fossil fuel extraction.

Monday, Jan. 20, 2025.  That was just the beginning. The rest of the week brought even more executive orders, vows to shrink or dismantle the Federal Emergency Management Agency and more. “It is all happening very fast,” says Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

The dizzying pace of announcements gives the impression that the nation’s entire climate landscape has changed in less than a week, even when that’s not entirely true, explains Burger. While much has indeed happened, he says, “lots of these things are not actually doing what they sound like they’re doing — they’re telling others to look into things and come back with a plan to pursue a broad policy.”

Ultimately, whether or not most things take effect and then stay in place will likely be determined in the courts. Here’s a quick overview of some of the most notable climate-related actions so far:

Paris Agreement Exit

In one of Trump’s first acts, he signed an order directing the US to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the deal that nearly 200 countries signed to rein in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid catastrophic warming. Trump did this the last time he was in office too, and no other country followed. It will take at least a year for the move to become official. Environmental leaders have decried the withdrawal, which could give other blocs and nations, especially China, more leverage in global climate talks. 

Trump also revoked the US International Climate Finance plan, which had directed billions to help other countries respond to climate impacts.

IRA Spending Paused

Via executive order, Trump directed agencies to “immediately pause” and review the spending of money through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, two major Biden-era laws. The next day, the administration clarified that the pause only relates to energy-related programs, including ones tied to renewable energy and electric vehicle charging but not, say, bridges or highways. The pause is expected to last 90 days, after which federal officials have been directed to share their reviews with the White House and provide recommendations on next steps to take. 

It’s unclear what will happen after the pause, and climate experts say there are sure to be legal fights over any attempts to claw back spending.

Electric Vehicles Targeted

As part of his broader energy order, Trump ordered his administration to look into the elimination of subsidies and other policies supporting electric vehicles. In particular, he stated his interest in terminating “state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.” This signals Trump is looking to renew his first-term challenge of California’s ability to limit gas-powered car sales.

Some Wind and Solar Project Approvals Halted

The Interior Department on Monday ordered a 60-day halt in approval of leases, rights of way and other authorizations tied to wind and solar projects on federal lands and waters. In a separate move, Trump signed an executive order, also on Monday, that temporarily halts permitting for new offshore wind projects. Trump has been vocal about his dislike of wind for years, and experts anticipated his targeting of the energy source this time around.

LNG Export Ban Lifted

In sharp contrast to his actions on renewable energy and electric vehicles, Trump immediately moved to lift a Biden-era ban on new liquefied natural gas export licenses. In late December, the Biden administration released a study finding additional exports would raise natural gas prices for US consumers and worsen global warming. Trump similarly revoked offshore oil and gas leasing bans, though it’s unclear how soon new offshore lease sales would occur.

Environmental Justice Dropped

Trump not only overturned Biden-era executive orders directing federal agencies to further consider environmental justice in everything they do, but revoked a 1994 Clinton-era executive order on the issue. The impacts of these rollbacks are tricky to determine: This is partly because agencies may have built environmental justice considerations into their regulations, and undoing that could require new, slow regulatory changes, notes Alice Kaswan, a law professor at the University of San Francisco. One clear immediate impact, though, is the expected shuttering of various environmental justice offices and positions across government. 

American Climate Corps Cancelled

Biden created the American Climate Corps, a program designed to get young people working in climate-related starter jobs across the country. This week, Trump dissolved it. It’s unclear if and how this affects people already in jobs they got through the program, which didn’t start from scratch but was built from and embedded within an existing network of job programs run by state and natio

By John R. Hays, Jr.

President Donald Trump now has a second opportunity to free the U.S. energy industry from unnecessary and expensive regulations, including oppressive, senseless caps that jeopardize our energy independence and give advantage to foreign markets.  

Change is much needed, especially since Joe Biden has overturned three-quarters of Trump’s deregulatory actions that prioritized American energy independence and natural resources. Biden walked back President Trump’s sanctioning of the Keystone XL Pipeline, imposed burdensome regulations on the emissions of naturally occurring gases like methane, and circumvented the legislative process by mandating federal agencies to create wide-sweeping proposals on obtaining carbon neutrality. 

Additionally, the Biden administration’s disastrous misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” has raised energy prices, skyrocketed inflation, and has failed to provide the clean energy advancement it promised. 

With Congress now on his side, President Trump can spearhead the adoption of much-needed energy reforms that have been blocked or overturned and can encourage policies that reduce costs, cultivate energy independence and stability, and put America’s interests and wellbeing first. 

In his first term, President Trump made great strides with environmental and energy sector deregulation, such as suspending participation in the Paris Climate Agreement, replacing the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, and lifting natural gas and oil extraction bans. But because the majority of these reforms were temporary fixes in the form of executive orders, it is crucial that President Trump’s second term policies create sustainable, long-term change that is written into law by Congress. 

As a whole, President Trump’s energy and environmental philosophy must remain anchored in free enterprise, economic stability, and independence from foreign adversaries. There are several steps he can take and encourage Congress to adopt to revive the stability and excellence of American energy. 

First, he should focus on eliminating harmful subsidies that distort energy markets and effectively nearly double the capital cost of electric generation. Wind energy subsidies are one example of these extraneous expenses that are made in the name of climate justice.  Instead, they disincentivize innovation, reduce competition, and raise prices for consumers.  

Second, the new administration should take a deregulatory scalpel to the countless unnecessary environmental and energy regulations that choke out competition, discourage energy development, and are not otherwise justified, such as regulations on emissions from naturally occurring gases like methane.  

Next, President Trump should encourage Congress to unleash our natural resources for greater innovation and economic growth. This can be done by discouraging restrictions on natural gas usage for appliances, promoting exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), facilitating construction of new pipelines and use of existing ones, and streamlining the leasing of federal lands for oil and gas development, such as Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The latter is especially important in light of Biden’s recent action to prevent drilling on over 625 million acres of offshore lands, something President Trump should take every action to reverse.  

To accomplish these objectives, the permitting process for energy projects must be reformed and streamlined to remove unjustified permits and solve the inefficiencies and years-long processing delays that stifle energy development and growth. Processing energy project permits in a timely and efficient manner will grow American jobs, fast-track energy independence, and ignite innovation of cleaner, alternative sources of energy such as nuclear generation. 

In the end, America’s domestic energy policies can only do so much for the environment and lessening the effects of any anthropomorphic climate change, since America contributes only a small fraction of overall so-called “greenhouse gases.”  Moreover, human activity is not the sole determiner of climate changes, and much change is caused by environmental phenomena outside human control – such as sunspots, volcanic activity, variations in Earth’s orbit, and changing CO2 levels. It is crucial that the incoming administration have a clear, well-rounded energy agenda that stabilizes the economy and slashes burdensome, politically correct regulations while still exploring cleaner and more efficient sources of sustainable energy. The two are not mutually exclusive. Now is the perfect time for the incoming administration to prioritize their fusion.  

Ultimately, the new energy and environmental policy platform must protect taxpayers from gratuitous spending in the name of “clean energy” — the Inflation Reduction Act’s $1 trillion fiscal cost being a prime example. It must include them in important climate and energy policy discussions and proposals, and it must prevent the energy shortages and inflation that are inevitable under today’s progressive regulations and caps. 

Environmental and energy agency employees must be transparent with and accountable to the American people about the costs of policies and regulations made in the name of preventing global warming. Sweeping climate and energy policy discussions should occur in the public sphere, not behind the closed doors of the EPA and the DOE.  

America’s energy and environmental policies are no longer simply a debate over whether anthropomorphic climate change exists and whether fossil fuels are responsible for global warming – it has evolved into an economic and national security issue that affects every American. The country needs energy independence to not only succeed, but to survive. Threats of foreign aggression loom on every front. Depending on our adversaries for critical energy supplies is reckless and irresponsible. 

Thankfully, conservatives finally have another chance to restore reliability, abundance, and affordability in the energy sector by unleashing our natural resources and removing anti-growth regulations.  

At long last, the new administration can combat the Biden-Harris progressive climate agenda that did nothing but waste American energy potential and burden hardworking Americans, all in the name of “saving the planet.” Such virtue-signaling policies are neither economically nor scientifically sound, and the next four years provide the perfect opportunity to overturn them and unleash the economic growth, innovation, and energy stability that America’s abundant natural resources make possible. 

John R. Hays, Jr., is a longtime energy lawyer based in Austin, Texas.  He served as an adjunct professor of energy law and policy at the University of Texas School of Law from 2008 through 2023. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

I wrote Where Power Lies because I was shocked by the extent to which the UK’s energy infrastructure was owned by multinational companies and foreign investors. I fear that, if anything, the situation will only have deteriorated over the three years and more since I wrote it.

I felt moved to return to the subject today when I read David Turver’s latest excellent piece about subsidies paid to renewables companies, with particular reference to Contracts for Difference (CfD). I was struck by the sheer scale of these payments in 2024, together with the fact that even were common sense to return to the DESNZ tomorrow (it won’t) so that the drive to renewables was slowed and future CfD rounds scrapped, we will be saddled with these payments for very many years to come. I have also written about the CfD regime before, but the situation seems to have deteriorated since then (for the taxpayers, but not for the – largely foreign – recipients). As David Turver says:

As well as 2024 being a record year overall, offshore wind received more subsidy than in any other year with £1.9bn paid out. Biomass conversion, a euphemism for burning trees, received £309m and biomass with combined heat and power (CHP) received a further £90m. Onshore wind received £73m and the two solar farms with active CfDs received just over £1m.

Incidentally, in December 2024, £260.3m was paid out in subsidies, the second highest month on record, with April 2024 being the highest at £269.8m.

Supporters of renewables often point out that when the market price of electricity is above the CfD strike price, then generators pay money back. This is true, but that was only significant in 2022 when a net £346m was repaid and compares to the net cost of the scheme of £9.6bn since inception.

The top thirteen CfD subsidy days all occurred in 2024, and a total of 16 days from the same year all appear in the Top-20. The day with the highest subsidy payments was 22 December 2024, with over £20m paid out in a single day. Offshore wind was the main recipient of this Government mandated largesse on that day, getting over £18.3m and biomass receiving over £1m.

The record subsidy days in December last year came despite elevated gas prices pushing up the reference price. The annual indexation of CfD strike prices with inflation means that as each year progresses, we are likely to see many more record subsidy days, especially if gas-prices fall back to more normal levels.

Let’s take a look at the recipients of the greatest sums of money.

Walney Offshore Wind Farm

Overall, Walney is the biggest recipient of CfD largesse, at almost £1.76Bn. In 2024 it was in second place for the year, receiving over £355 million. I wrote about Walney in Where Power Lies, saying this:

Another increasingly large offshore wind farm is that at Walney, comprising Walney I, Walney II and the Walney Extension, based 12 miles off the south Cumbrian coast.

While the 659MW facility, Walney Extension is co-owned by Orsted and Danish pension funds PFA and PKA, Walney I and II are apparently owned by Orsted (50.1%), SSE (25.1%) and OPW (24.8%). Orsted and SSE we have already met. OPW appear to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the New York Stock Exchange Listed, Illinois based, Dover Corporation.

Ørsted, of course is a Danish company. Specifically (citing myself once more):

Ørsted has its origin in the Danish state-owned company Dansk Naturgas A/S. The company was founded in 1972 to manage gas and oil resources in the Danish sector of the North Sea. After some years, the company was renamed to Dansk Olie og Naturgas A/S (DONG), meaning Danish Oil and Natural Gas. At the beginning of the decade of the 2000s, DONG started to expand itself into the electricity market by taking long positions in electricity companies. In 2005, DONG acquired and merged Danish electrical power producers Elsam and Energi E2 and public utility (electricity distribution) companies NESA, Københavns Energi and Frederiksberg Forsyning. The result of the merger was the creation of DONG Energy.

Hornsea 1 Offshore Wind Farm

Hornsea 1 is part of a huge offshore wind farm. Over all time it lies in second place, behind Walney, having received almost £1.67Bn in total. However, it was the highest paid recipient of CfD largesse in 2024, receiving almost £540 million. When I wrote Where Power Lies, Hornsea 1 was, so far as I could tell, wholly-owned and operated by Ørsted. Since then it appears that the situation has changed. A visit to its website tells me that the offshore wind farm is owned by Ørsted (50%) as well as partners Greencoat, TRIG & Equitix, GLIL & Octopus Renewables. Greencoat, I assume is Greencoat Renewables PLC, whose website tells us is an owner and operator of renewable energy infrastructure assets in Europe. It is listed on the Euronext Growth Market of Euronext Dublin and the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange. Who the ultimate owners are at any one time therefore depends on day to day trading on those two Stock Exchanges. It is incorporated in the Republic of Ireland. According to its most recent Report & Accounts for the year ended 21^st December 2023, its principal shareholders at that date were:

BlackRock Inc (10.1%); KBI Global Investors (8.9%); FIL Investment International (7.3%); Brewin Dolphin Wealth Management (5.3%); Abrdn plc (5.1%); Irish Life Investment Managers (4.8%); Newton Investment Management (4.5%); Cantor Fitzgerald (3.7%: M&G Investment Management (3.3%); Davy Stockbroker (3.3%); and CCLA (3.1%).

What its precise ownership of Hornsea 1 might be is difficult to say – I can’t find it in the Hornsea 1 website and Greencoat’s Annual Report & Accounts don’t mention it.

As for the other part-owners, I can find no confirmation of their share of Hornsea 1 either, though TRIG’s website does tell us that it is “a London-listed investment company whose purpose is to generate sustainable returns from a diversified portfolio of renewables infrastructure that contribute towards a net zero carbon future.” According to its most recent Annual Report & Accounts (also to 31^st December 2023) its investment in Hornsea 1 accounts for approximately 10% of its portfolio, and TRIG is actually “a Guernsey-registered closed-ended investment company.” The Report & Accounts also disclose the following shareholders with more than 5% of TRIG’s shares:

Rathbones (11.70%); Quilter Cheviot (5.44%); and RBC Brewin Dolphin (5.02%).

Rathbones (11.70%); Quilter Cheviot (5.44%); and RBC Brewin Dolphin (5.02%).According to the website of Equitix, it is “a leading international investor, developer and fund manager in infrastructure”, whose majority shareholder is Tetragon Financial Group Limited, a Guernsey close-ended investment company, with non-voting shares listed on Euronext in Amsterdam and also traded on the Specialist Fund Segment of the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange. So the beneficiaries of its shareholding could be almost anyone, but I assume that wherever they live, they won’t be paying a lot of tax on the money they make out of it, given the fund’s Guernsey location. All voting shares of the Fund are held by Polygon Credit Holdings II Limited, which is described in its most recent Financial Statement as “a non-U.S. affiliate of the Investment Manager. The Investment Manager, Tetragon Financial Management LP, is registered as an investment adviser under the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as is TFG Asset Management L.P., Tetragon’s diversified alternative asset management business. So that’s as clear as mud to anyone except investment experts.

GLIL is, I assume GLIL Infrastructure, whose website tells us that it “can offer investors exposure to high-quality, predictable and consistent cashflow generating assets in a range of sectors covering greenfield sites, regulated utilities and transport upgrades.” It is based in the UK and claims to be “an innovative collaboration between aligned and like-minded investors who are seeking investment into core infrastructure opportunities predominantly in the UK”. Make of that what you will.

I assume that Octopus Renewables is Octopus Renewables Infrastructure Trust plc, whose website tells us that it is “is an Impact Fund helping accelerate the transition to net zero. It is an investment company focused on providing investors with an attractive and sustainable level of income returns, with an element of capital growth, by investing in a diversified portfolio of Renewable Energy Assets across Europe, the UK and Australia”. It is is a London-listed closed-ended investment company incorporated in England and Wales. If its most recent interim report & accounts mentions its stake in Hornsea 1, I’m afraid I missed it. Quite telling is this from page 30 of the interim report:

The UK remains a favourable market for renewable energy investments, and even more so following the formation of the new Labour government in July 2024 and the policy measures that it has rapidly implemented…

…With a significant portion of its investments in the UK, including three developer investments focused on the UK market, ORIT is poised to benefit from the government’s strong support for renewable energy initiatives (the UK is ORIT’s largest single market, 40% of total value of all investments at 30 June 2024). The positive recent policy changes will support the industry and ORIT expects an acceleration in new projects coming to market over the coming years, as well as greater potential for CfD support for ready to build assets developed by Wind2 and BLCe.

Greater potential for CfD “support”, eh?

According to the most recent Annual Report & Accounts made up to 31^st December 2023, the most significant shareholder are:

Sarasin & Partners LLP (9.94%); Rathbone Investment Management Ltd (7.40%); Brewin Dolphin Limited (5.24%); Schroders plc (5.01%); Baillie Gifford & Co (5.00%); EFG Private Bank Limited (4.99%); Quilter Plc (4.29%); and Newton Investment Management Limited (3.06%).

Drax

Drax figures third in overall receipts (just short of £1.6Bn), though it fell to sixth place in terms of 2024 recipients of largesse from the taxpayer, receiving just over £216 million. For once it’s a UK company. If you want a laugh, you could visit its website, or if you want to read a more realistic version, you could try Jit’s The Beast of Selby. According to its most recent Annual Report & Accounts, however, its major shareholders were:

Bank of American Corporation (10.69%); Invesco Limited (9.71%); Schroders plc (9.64%); and Orbis Holdings Limited (5.01%).

Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm

Beatrice is in fifth place overall for the receipt of CFD payments, having received a total of £1.045Bn. In 2024 it was in third place, with CfD receipts of just under £270 million. As its website tells us, it is a joint venture between SSE Renewables (40%); Red Rock Renewables (25%); Trig (17.5%); and Equitix (also 17.5%). We have looked at TRIG and Equitix above. SSE Renewables is a subsidiary of London Stock Exchange quoted SSE plc. It may be quoted on the London Stock Exchange, but according to its most recent Annual Report & Accounts (for the year 2023/24), its major shareholders – by voting rights – are multinational: Black Rock Inc (7.44%); Barclays Bank PLC (5.22%); JP Morgan Chase & Co (5.2%); The Capital Group Companies Inc (4.9%); Invesco Limited (4.69%); Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (3.98%); Bank of America Corporation (0.43%).

As for the other joint venture partner in Beatrice, its website tries to tell us that Red Rock Renewables is a Scotland-based investor, developer, owner and operator of renewable energy projects. Scotland-based, perhaps, but Chinese-owned. As its website tells us, it is in fact “the European subsidiary of SDIC Power, a global energy company based in Beijing….SDIC Power Holdings Co., Ltd, is a listed company in Shanghai Stock Exchange (SH.600886), with State Development and Investment Corporation (SDIC), a State-Controlled Enterprise, holding 51.32% of its shares as of 2022.”

Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm

Dudgeon features in fourth place in both the overall and 2024 CfD payments league tables, having received just under £234 million in 2024, and almost £1.22Bn overall. By the way, I recommend Jit’s piece, High Dudgeon to you, when you’re finished reading this. According to Dudgeon’s website:

Through the joint venture company Dudgeon Offshore Wind Limited, the wind farm is owned by Equinor, Masdar and China Resources (Holdings), and Equinor is its operator having developed the £1.4b power plant between 2012 and 2017.

Equinor is Norwegian-owned. According to its website:

In 1972, Statoil was formed by a decision of the Norwegian parliament and owned 100% by the Norwegian State. In 2001, Equinor was listed on the Oslo and New York stock exchanges with a 67% majority stake owned by the Norwegian State. In 2018 we changed our name to Equinor.

Well, you would change your name, wouldn’t you? Statoil isn’t likely to burnish your “green” credentials when you’re looking for UK “green” subsidies, is it?

Masdar is a United Arab Emirates Company. According to its website :

With three leading UAE energy champions as our shareholders – the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), Mubadala Investment Company, and Abu Dhabi National Energy Company PJSC (TAQA) – Masdar is supporting the UAE’s transition toward a knowledge-based economy. A catalyst for renewable energy development in the Arab world over the past decade, Masdar is demonstrating how the business community can deliver on the global sustainability agenda.

I love this bit:

Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) is one of the world’s leading energy producers and a primary catalyst for the growth and diversification of the Abu Dhabi economy. With a production capacity of more than 4 million barrels of oil per day and 11.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day…

China Resources (Holdings) is a Chinese state-owned conglomerate, based in Hong Kong. Enough said.

EA1 Offshore Wind Farm

EA stands for East Anglia. Overall, it stands in 8^th place, with total CfD payments of more than £650 million. In 2024, it featured in fifth place, with payments in the year of more than £230 million.

As its website tells us, it is “a joint venture between ScottishPower Renewables and Macquarie’s Green Investment Group (GIG)”. Despite the name, Scottish Power is of course a wholly-owned subsidiary of Spanish Company Iberdrola, and indeed the website describes it as the largest wind farm in Iberdrola’s history. Who knows, perhaps it’s the one that makes it the most money in subsidies, too?

Macquarie, meanwhile, and its Green Investment Group, are Australian.

Burbo Bank Offshore Wind Farm

This is in 6^th place overall, with total CfD payments over the years of more than £700 million. In 2024, it was in 7^th place, with CfD payments of more than £124 million.

It is one of 12 operational wind farms in the UK or its offshore waters, owned by Ørsted, and is Danish.

Lynemouth Biomass

This (like Drax) is a former coal power station, converted to biomass. It’s in 7^th place overall, with total CfD payments of almost £675 million. In 2024 it was in 9^th place, with CfD payments in the year of more than £92 million. It is owned by Czech company, EPH (“We keep the remaining coal capacities operational solely to ensure security of supply in the near term, while we have a clear coal exit plan”). As for Lynemouth, it “uses sustainably-sourced, renewable wood pellets, primarily from the USA and Canada, which are transported to the UK by sea.” Right….

Triton Knoll Offshore Wind Farm

It doesn’t feature in the overall top ten, but its in 8^th place in 2024, with CfD payments of more than £108 million. As its website tells us: “The project is owned by RWE (59%) and partners J-Power (25%) and Kansai Electric Power (16%), with RWE responsible for operating and maintaining the wind farm”. RWE is a German company, based in Essen. J-Power is a subsidiary of Sumitomo Electric Industries, in Japan. Kansai Electric Power is also Japanese.

Teesside Biomass Plant

This features in 9^th place overall, with total CfD payments of more than £90 million. It’s in 10^th place in 2024, but it looks as if it will be moving up the overall rankings, as it received almost £88 million in 2024. It is owned by MGT Teesside Limited, a company limited in England, but if you looked no further, you would be misled. Its ultimate owner is the Australian company, Macquarie.

Dorenell Onshore Wind Farm

Dorenell is the poor relation among this company. It’s not in the 2024 top ten, and scrapes into the overall top 10 in tenth place, with CfD receipts of just under £45 million. It’s owned by EDF Renewables, a French company.

Ongoing foolishness

Hot off the press (or the online equivalent) the Herald today reports that the Scottish government is considering handing £60 million to two Chinese companies (Minyang Smart Energy and Orient Cable) to build wind farm factories in Scotland. Except that I don’t believe in any “net zero transition”, I’m with Lord Alton, when he asks:

What are we thinking of, handing over such important capability in the net-zero transition to an entity that comes from an authoritarian and hostile state, and doing so as the European Union is launching its antitrust investigation into Chinese turbine manufacturers?

Conclusion

When considering all the above money that is leaching out of the country, bear in mind that these are just the CfD payments, an absurdly large, but only one part of the overall subsidy regime. And of course, subsidies represent only some of the vast amounts of money we are paying for renewable energy. It’s bad enough that we are over-paying for energy. In addition, to damage our already weak balance of payments in an ongoing and growing manner, while making us dependent on foreign companies whose overriding objective is to make money (except possibly the Chinese companies, for whom national security objectives might rank higher) is absurd. This not what national financial or energy security looks like.