5 ms·

You could go to the source and see[1]. > TotalEnergies has committed to invest approximately $1 billion—the value of its renounced offshore wind leases—in oil

by cwal37 6mo ago

You could go to the source and see[1]. > TotalEnergies has committed to invest approximately $1 billion—the value of its renounced offshore wind leases—in oil and natural gas and LNG production in the United States. Following their new investment, the United States will reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar, up to the amount they paid in lease purchases for offshore wind. Under this innovative agreement driven by President Donald J. Trump’s Energy Dominance Agenda, the American people will no longer pay for ideological subsidies that benefited only the unreliable and costly offshore wind industry. > For its part, TotalEnergies will invest $928MM, on the following projects in 2026: The development of Train 1 to 4 of Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas; The development of upstream conventional oil in Gulf of America and of shale gas production. Following TotalEnergies’ $928 million in investments in affordable, reliable and secure U.S. energy projects, the United States will terminate the following leases and reimburse the company [1] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-and-totalenergies-agree-end-offshore-wind-projects-lowering-costs-american https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-and-totalenergies...

Ajedi32 6mo ago
Thanks, that's helpful. Pretty annoying the original article didn't link to its source given that it was just repeating the contents of a press release. Anyone know what these "ideological subsidies" are that they're referring to? Were they part of the agreement that was just terminated? Or was that just a vaguely related talking point they inserted into the press release for political reasons?
- cwal37 6mo ago
  "ideological subsidies" for this administration means any policy supporting non-thermal and non-battery (to a lesser extent, although their lobby has pretty successfully extracted them from previous renewable associations they relied on) generating units. To get more specific, you could say everything rolled back from the IRA as part of the BBB.
  - Ajedi32 6mo ago
    If it's just BBB they're referring to then I would call that a political talking point since that doesn't seem directly related to this deal. Unless the subsidies being repealed explains why TotalEnergies seems happy to get out of the lease now even though they presumably thought it was a good deal for them back when they originally agreed to it. If that's true though then I don't know why neither the article nor the press release say anything about it other than in this vague allusion.
    - beepbooptheory 6mo ago
      Unclear to me what would satisfy this complaint.. You wish La Monde speculated more on some glaring omission of motive here? You're original point is that they seemed to speculate too much!
      - Ajedi32 6mo ago
        They could do some actual journalism, find out the answers to some of these obvious follow-up questions, and report on them. Or, failing that, link to the press report since it seems like as is they aren't really adding much beyond that. But my original complaint about editorializing was about the title the submitter wrote on HN, not the article title.
        fastasucan 6mo ago
        What if they couldn't grt an answer, should they just not publish in that case? And why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office.
        Ajedi32 6mo ago
        They could at least raise the questions in the article instead of leaving readers with the impression they didn't even try to find answers. Worst case, you write "the person we spoke to declined to comment". > why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office Just reporting the contents of the press release as if it were your original reporting is worse IMO. At least reading a press release you know the source of the information and what their agenda is.
maest 6mo ago
I know it's par for the course, but I'm constantly surprised to see how editorialised official communications from the US government are.
- anon7725 6mo ago
  Everything is written in the voice of a terminally online Twitter troll. Every single communication from the U.S. federal government should be assumed to be a lie until proven otherwise.
  - fastasucan 6mo ago
    I wonder how long it takes (it took?) before Americans think this is how it all should be, and that this is how it is in every country.
hedora 6mo ago
So, to add insult to injury, this is going to a $1B railway expansion that won't carry passengers?

by cwal37 6mo ago

Ajedi32 6mo ago

Thanks, that's helpful. Pretty annoying the original article didn't link to its source given that it was just repeating the contents of a press release. Anyone know what these "ideological subsidies" are that they're referring to? Were they part of the agreement that was just terminated? Or was that just a vaguely related talking point they inserted into the press release for political reasons?

cwal37 6mo ago
"ideological subsidies" for this administration means any policy supporting non-thermal and non-battery (to a lesser extent, although their lobby has pretty successfully extracted them from previous renewable associations they relied on) generating units. To get more specific, you could say everything rolled back from the IRA as part of the BBB.
- Ajedi32 6mo ago
  If it's just BBB they're referring to then I would call that a political talking point since that doesn't seem directly related to this deal. Unless the subsidies being repealed explains why TotalEnergies seems happy to get out of the lease now even though they presumably thought it was a good deal for them back when they originally agreed to it. If that's true though then I don't know why neither the article nor the press release say anything about it other than in this vague allusion.
  - beepbooptheory 6mo ago
    Unclear to me what would satisfy this complaint.. You wish La Monde speculated more on some glaring omission of motive here? You're original point is that they seemed to speculate too much!
    - Ajedi32 6mo ago
      They could do some actual journalism, find out the answers to some of these obvious follow-up questions, and report on them. Or, failing that, link to the press report since it seems like as is they aren't really adding much beyond that. But my original complaint about editorializing was about the title the submitter wrote on HN, not the article title.
      - fastasucan 6mo ago
        What if they couldn't grt an answer, should they just not publish in that case? And why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office.
        Ajedi32 6mo ago
        They could at least raise the questions in the article instead of leaving readers with the impression they didn't even try to find answers. Worst case, you write "the person we spoke to declined to comment". > why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office Just reporting the contents of the press release as if it were your original reporting is worse IMO. At least reading a press release you know the source of the information and what their agenda is.

maest 6mo ago

I know it's par for the course, but I'm constantly surprised to see how editorialised official communications from the US government are.

anon7725 6mo ago
Everything is written in the voice of a terminally online Twitter troll. Every single communication from the U.S. federal government should be assumed to be a lie until proven otherwise.
- fastasucan 6mo ago
  I wonder how long it takes (it took?) before Americans think this is how it all should be, and that this is how it is in every country.

hedora 6mo ago

So, to add insult to injury, this is going to a $1B railway expansion that won't carry passengers?