ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Houston university's compost program reaches major milestone

seeing green

Rice University, which works with Houston-based Moonshot Compost, reported a milestone achievement this month. Photo via Getty Images

Rice University and its campus community have officially diverted over 1 million pounds of food waste from landfills.

The university, which works with Houston-based Moonshot Compost, reported the milestone achievement this month. The program was originally launched in November 2020.

“The genesis of the current composting program was a partnership between Housing and Dining, the Office of Sustainability and an undergraduate student named Ashley Fitzpatrick,” says Richard Johnson, senior executive director for sustainability at Rice, in a news release.

“We spent quite a bit of time developing options for food waste composting at Rice with those efforts really ramping up in 2019. After a pilot project, further reflection and an interruption due to the pandemic, we found Moonshot Compost, and they proved to be the partner we needed.”

Fitzpatrick, the student who started it all went on to graduate and now works for Moonshot Compost. She did leave a legacy of student involvement in the program, and Isabelle Chang now serves as an undergraduate student intern in the Office of Sustainability. The role includes liaising with students and other major players on campus who have feedback for the program.

Rice previously had a composting program, but it never reached the same level of scale, per the news release.

“Many years ago — from the late 1990s to about 2007 — we had an on-campus composting device called the Earth Tub that provided food waste composting at one campus kitchen,” Johnson said. “However, the device failed, and frankly, the process of operating the device, getting the food waste into the device and maintaining it all proved onerous. Interest in composting remained after we decommissioned the Earth Tub, and for years we looked for alternatives [before finding Moonshot Compost].”

Launched in July 2020 by Chris Wood and Joe Villa, Moonshot operates with a team of drivers utilizing its data platform to quantify the environmental benefits of composting. The duo went on to team up with energy industry veteran Rene Ramirez to harness their compost into clean hydrogen power.

Last fall, Moonshot Hydrogen signed a memorandum of understanding with the Purdue Innovates Office of Technology Commercialization. The agreement includes facilitating the first operating commercial pilot that biologically turns food waste into hydrogen.

ESG has certainly come a long way, but has it come too far, actually? Photo via Getty Images

Houston energy tech entrepreneur on if 'ESG' is a dirty word

guest column

Whose responsibility is it to care for the social good? That’s an important, yet hopelessly complex question, particularly when aimed at sustainability.

When it comes to businesses and other profit-seeking firms, they tend to search for a balance between success today and success overtime. Too much focus in either direction can be deadly.

An apt analogy is a virus: too much reproduction too fast and the host dies, which is why the most successful viruses find the threshold for maximizing reproduction without overly weakening the host.

Payment is about to be due, but from whom?

The ESG movement encapsulates targets from ethical investing related to environmental issues, social values and corporate governance. As it relates to climate, people are working hard to determine how much cumulative effect of human activity is too much for our survival. And there continues to be open questions about how businesses should react to the scientific consensus that climate conditions will continue getting worse, without immediate and severe corrective action. If the consensus is that this is a problem for businesses to fix, whose money do they spend to do it?

Greed was good, once

Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman famously advocated for firms to focus primarily on returning value to shareholders. With respect to social good, he advocated that shareholders use their returns to pursue them; businesses should just chase profit. His 1970 article in the New York Times Magazine is worth a read, particularly his last paragraph, where he observes that corporate dollars spent advancing social responsibility represent the theft of money from investors, customers, or employees. The challenge is, how many negative externalities do we absorb before seeking to redirect corporate profits?

Making impact be part of the analysis

Others have argued that firms have a social responsibility and should pursue, using the term John Elkington coined in 1994, a triple bottom line approach, focusing on profit, people, and planet. Adherents to this approach believe you only get what you measure, and therefore,businesses should measure more than just profit. The challenge is, who is smart enough to balance these accounts?

ESG to the rescue?

The term ESG itself was the result of good intentioned actors in the investment space who wanted to track the efficacy of investing in businesses that scored well for social responsibility. They theorized, and had some support, that these companies outperformed the market. The result was the formation of the Principles for Responsible Investment in 2013, with its six core principles for “incorporating ESG issues into investment practice.”

ESG has certainly come a long way from Milton Friendmen, though it’s challenging to say how the movement is going. From one perspective, it looks like everyone is in trouble. Banks for investing in companies who are not moving fast enough. Energy companies and other producers of consumer products for greenwashing their efforts. Private equity firms for forcing ESG standards that some view as a step-too-far. Financial service companies for assisting in greenwashing. And, of course, the worst offenders are “the woke.” From the other perspective, we are finally starting to see some incentives for companies to address and solve long-ignored problems.

One size fits no one

The question of “Who is responsible for ESG?” reminds me of a presentation I attended in spring 2022, given by a senior executive of a large landfill operator. Before he began his discussion of the environmental impacts of operating a landfill, he noted that his billion dollar company did not really create any trash, it simply collected and received trash from all of us! He was begging the question, “Am I solely responsible for your bad decisions?”

And that’s really the issue with ESG, is it not? Who, for example, is responsible for creating pollution? The energy companies for producing oil and natural gas from underground reserves, or the members of the public who drive cars, buy plastic goods, and flip on the lights? The government for letting those things happen? The answer is sadly both none of us and all of us.

Regulators, mount up

Regulating and investing are often in conflict, but they share one common characteristic: few people have ever done either well. That doesn’t mean we quit trying. There are those among us who can find the signal in the noise, who can stare at a pile of numbers and find the rule that answers the question, or at least correlates well to the desired outcome.

People change expensive behaviors

Charlie Munger famously said, “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.” If I had a magic wand, I would want the power to create global markets for the right to release harmful pollutants / emissions or deposit certain types of waste in landfills. It has worked before, and it will likely be what leads us where we need to go. Until we create marketplaces limiting the release of pollutants and disposal of waste, society will continue to fall prey to complex regulatory solutions that are easy for incumbent industries to strike down. Instead, putting a price on these activities will allow the incumbents to innovate and new companies to compete.

When it comes to ESG, I think we fear two outcomes equally: a world that feels a little out of control and a class of people, or institutions of government, who appear all too confident they have the answers. Maybe we can turn the heat down in the ESG debate by prioritizing what we measure and report and creating marketplaces that incentivize people to solve the most pressing problems.

———

Chris Wood is the co-founder of Houston-based Moonshot Compost.

Houston energy transition folks — here's what to know to start your week. Photo via Getty Images

Houston energy transition events not to miss, expert commentary on climate crisis, and more things to know

take note

Editor's note: Start your week off strong with three quick things to catch up on in Houston's energy transition: a roundup of events not to miss, a new Houston energy executive to know, and more.

Events not to miss

Put these Houston-area energy-related events on your calendar.

    • Future of Energy Summit is Tuesday, February 6, at AC Hotel by Marriott Houston Downtown. Register.
    • The 2024 NAPE Summit is Wednesday, February 7, to Friday, February 9, at the George R. Brown Convention Center. It's the energy industry’s marketplace for the buying, selling and trading of prospects and producing properties. Register.
    • The De Lange Conference, taking place February 9 and 10 at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, is centered around the theme “Brave New Worlds: Who Decides? Research, Risk and Responsibility” this year. Register.
    • The Future of Energy Across the Americas: Helping Lawyers Predict and Adapt — the 2024 Houston Energy Conference — is February 27 to March 1. Register.
    • CERAWeek 2024 is Monday, March 18, to Friday, March 22, in the George R. Brown Convention Center. Register.

    ​Commentary: Chris Wood, co-founder of Moonshot Compost, on loving the climate apocalypse​

    Chris Wood knows that the last thing anyone wants to be reminded of in 2024 is the impending climate apocalypse, but, as he writes in his guest column, "There is a scientific consensus that the world climate is trending towards uninhabitable for many species, including humans, due in large part to results of human activity."

    He cites a report that 93 percent “believe that climate change poses a serious and imminent threat to the planet.”

    "Until recently reviewing this report, I was unaware that 93 percent of any of us could agree on anything," he writes. "It got me thinking, how much of our problem today is based on misunderstanding both the nature of the problem and the solution?" Read more.

    New hire: Bracewell names new partner to advise clients on energy transition tax incentives

    Bracewell announced that Jennifer Speck has joined the firm's tax department as a partner in the Houston office. Speck will advise clients on energy transition tax incentives.

    Some of her experiences include onshore and offshore wind, solar, carbon capture, clean hydrogen and clean fuel projects. She recently served as senior manager of tax and regulatory compliance at Navigator CO2 Ventures LLC. She graduated in 2010 with a B.F.A. in mental health psychology from Northeastern State University, and received her J.D., with honors, from The University of Tulsa College of Law in 2012. Read more.

    Houston climate tech founder weighs in on his observations on what's true, what's exaggerated, and what all humans can agree on about the climate crisis. Photo via Getty Imagees

    Houston expert: Why climate action needs better PR and how to love the climate apocalypse

    guest column

    The last thing anyone wants in 2024 is a reminder of the impending climate apocalypse, but here it is: There is a scientific consensus that the world climate is trending towards uninhabitable for many species, including humans, due in large part to results of human activity.

    Psychologists today observe a growing trend of patients with eco-anxiety or climate doom, reflecting some people’s inability to cope with their climate fears. The Edelman Trust Barometer, in its most recent survey respondents in 14 countries, reports that 93 percent “believe that climate change poses a serious and imminent threat to the planet.”

    Until recently reviewing this report, I was unaware that 93 percent of any of us could agree on anything. It got me thinking, how much of our problem today is based on misunderstanding both the nature of the problem and the solution?

    We’ve been worried for good reason before 

    It’s worth keeping in mind that climate change is not the first time smart people thought humans were doomed by our own successes or failures. Robert Malthus theorized at the end of the 18th century that projected human fertility would certainly outpace agricultural production. Just a century and a half later, about half of all Americans expected a nuclear war, and the number jumped to as high as 80 percent expecting the next war to be nuclear. Yes, global hunger and nuclear threats still exist, but our results have outperformed the worst of those dire projections.

    We are worried for good reason today 

    Today changing climate conditions have grabbed the headlines. The world’s climate is changing at a rate faster than we can model effectively, though our best modeling suggests significant, coordinated, global efforts are necessary to reverse current trends. While there’s still lots to learn, the consensus is that we are approaching a global temperature barrier across which we may not be able to quickly return. These conclusions are worrisome.

    How did we get here?

    Our reliance on hydrocarbons is at the heart of our climate challenge. If combusting them is so damaging, why do we keep doing it? We know enough about our human cognitive biases to say that humans tend to “live in the moment” when it comes to decision making. Nobel Prize-winning economic research suggests we choose behaviors that reward us today rather than those with longer term payoffs. Also, changing behaviors around hydrocarbons is hard. Crude oil, natural gas and coal have played a central role in the reduction of human suffering over time, helping to lift entire populations out of poverty, providing the power for our modern lives and even supplying instrumental materials for clothes and packaging. It’s hard to stop relying on a resource so plentiful, versatile and reliable.

    How do we get out of here?

    Technological advances in the future may help us address climate in new and unexpected ways. If we do nothing and hope for the best, what’s the alternative? We can take confidence that we’ve addressed difficult problems before. We can also take confidence that advancements like nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind power are already supplementing our primary reliance on hydrocarbons.

    The path forward will be extending the utility of these existing alternatives and identifying new technologies. We need to reduce emissions and to withdraw greenhouse gasses (GHGs) that have already been emitted. The nascent energy transition will continue to be funded by venture capitalists, government spending/incentives and private philanthropy. Larger funding sources will come from private equity and public markets, as successful technologies compete for more traditional sources of capital.

    Climate Tech will be a large piece of the climate puzzle

    My biases are likely clear: the same global capitalism that brought about our complicated modern world, with its apparent abundance and related climate consequences, has the best chance to save us. Early stage climate tech funding is increasing, even if it’s still too small. It has been observed that climate tech startups receiving funding today fail to track solutions for industries in proportion to their related production of GHGs. For instance, the agriculture and food sector creates about 18 percent of global GHGs, while climate tech companies seeking to address that sector receive about 9 percent of climate tech funding. These misalignments aside, the trendlines are in the right direction.

    What can you do?

    From a psychological perspective, healthy coping means making small decisions that address your fears, even if you can’t eliminate the root causes. Where does that leave you?

    Be a voice for reasonable change. Make changes in your behavior where and when you can. Also, take comfort when you see existing industries adopting meaningful sustainable practices at faster rates. Support the companies you believe are part of the solution.

    We are already seeing a burgeoning climate tech industry across the globe and here at home. With concerted efforts like the Ion and Greentown Labs, the Houston climate tech sector is helping to lead the charge. In what was even recently an unthinkable reality, the United States has taken a leadership role. Tellingly, we are not leading necessarily by setting targets, but instead by funding young startups and new infrastructure like the hydrogen hubs. We don’t know when or where the next Thomas Edison will emerge to shine a new light in a dark world. However, I do suspect that that woman or man is alive today, and it’s our job to keep building a world worth that person saving.

    ---

    Chris Wood is the co-founder of Houston-based Moonshot Compost.

    Moonshot Compost has announced its plans to create green hydrogen at scale. Photo via Getty Images

    Houston startup launches clean energy business to turn compost into hydrogen

    waste to power

    You may already know Moonshot Compost, a Houston company devoted to collecting food waste all over Texas. Now, meet Moonshot Hydrogen.

    Founders and brothers-in-law Chris Wood and Joe Villa have joined forces with energy industry veteran Rene Ramirez to harness their compost into clean hydrogen power.

    Earlier this month, the new branch of the existing company signed a memorandum of understanding with the Purdue Innovates Office of Technology Commercialization. The agreement comes close to a year after Ramirez first began working with Purdue University Northwest professors, Robert Kramer and Libbie Pelter, and Purdue University’s professor, John Patterson. The result is the first operating commercial pilot that biologically turns food waste into hydrogen.

    This revelation comes just days after the Biden-Harris administration announced that it had set aside $7 billion to H2Hubs, a collection of seven regional hydrogen power stations, including one in the Houston area.

    “We love the timing. There’s just a lot of interest right now,” Wood tells EnergyCapital in a video call with Villa and Ramirez. “It's been fun to watch Rene's long relationship with Purdue come to fruition on behalf of that hydrogen at the same time that the DoD is moving forward with their announcement on the hydrogen hubs.”

    Wood and Villa founded Moonshot Compost three years ago.

    “The thought was, 'waste is so valuable, and there's so much of it in the trash.' So we wanted to focus on, ‘Let's get our hands on as much food waste as possible,’ and always be focused on doing the best thing with our food waste,” Wood says.

    Initially, that meant making compost, which saved the waste from a landfill and produced high-quality, nutrient-rich soil. Customers include both private homes and commercial accounts. Those include heavy hitters like Rice University, Conoco Phillips and Texas Children’s Hospital, as well as beloved restaurants ranging from Bludorn to Tacodeli. And that’s just in Houston. The company now collects from businesses in Austin, Dallas and Waco, too.

    That extended footprint will be important to Moonshot Hydrogen.

    “Our big dream is ideally that we have one of these hydrogen facilities in almost every city that we can think of. Your city has that ability to charge up or refuel the cars with hydrogen at-location and not have to worry about going 300 miles away,” says Ramirez.

    Filling up your car with zero-emission hydrogen made from compost? It could be a reality sooner than you think. According to Wood, Moonshot is already in the preliminary stages of discussions with a facility to pilot just such a program.

    “We’ve been thrilled with how receptive people are. There does seem to be a general acknowledgment that this would fit well with Houston’s desire to be the energy transition capital of the world,” he says.

    Their patent-protected technology assures that Moonshot is the only company with this novel solution to food waste. Most exciting is the fact that the institutions with which Moonshot already partners could be on the ground floor of being at least partially powered by their own discarded scraps.

    “Everyone loves the circularity aspect of it,” says Ramirez. And with a potential launch as soon as next March, it’s one step closer to a reality for the Energy Transition Capital.

    Ad Placement 300x100
    Ad Placement 300x600

    CultureMap Emails are Awesome

    Property Showcase

    Houston's KBR tapped to provide tech for first SAF plant in Kazakhstan

    clean deals

    Houston-based engineering and technology firm KBR Inc. has been tapped to provide technology for Kazakhstan's first sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production plant.

    KazMunayGas-Aero LLP (KMG-Aero), a subsidiary of Kazakhstan’s national oil and gas company KazMunayGas, and KazFoodProducts awarded the contract to KBR for the project. The plant will use the alcohol-to-jet (AtJ) process for producing aviation fuel and aims to support President Kassym-Jomart Kemeluly Tokayev’s goal of boosting Kazakhstan's profile as a global aviation player, according to a news release from KBR.

    "We are honored to support KMG-Aero and KFP in advancing the national commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, recognizing the pivotal role of aviation decarbonization in achieving these strategic objectives,” Jay Ibrahim, president of KBR Sustainable Technology Solutions, said in the release.

    KBR will provide its PureSAF technology and engineering design for the project. Invented and developed by Swedish Biofuels AB, the PureSAF tech will be used to convert alcohol-based feedstocks into SAF. The PureSAF Technology can process multiple feedstocks—like bioethanol, syngas, carbon dioxide and hydrogen—and convert them to SAF, diesel and gasoline, according to KBR.

    "KBR’s PureSAF is a feed-flexible, bankable technology that is designed to deliver high SAF yields and supports the project across the full lifecycle,” Ibrahim added in the release. “We look forward to closely collaborating and supporting the successful execution of this landmark SAF project.”

    Earlier this summer, KBR was also chosen to provide technology for what’s expected to be Asia's first commercial-scale ethanol-to-jet (SAF) plant. The plant has a planned production capacity of up to 100,000 tons of SAF per year.

    In addition to the SAF projects, KBR also announced this month that it has been selected by ORNX Green Hydrogen to provide proprietary ammonia technologies for a low-cost green ammonia project in Morocco.

    The commitments come as KBR shifts its focus solely toward sustainability technology and services. The company is in the process of spinning off its Mission Technology Solutions business, which KBR recently announced will be named Trinzic. The remaining company, "New KBR," will serve the ammonia and syngas, chemical and petrochemicals, clean refining and circular economy markets.

    Army to build nuclear microreactors at 5 U.S. bases, including Texas

    Nuclear News

    The U.S. Army announced Wednesday that it plans to add nuclear microreactors at five military bases from New York to Texas as a reliable source of energy independent of the commercial electric grid.

    The announcement comes as the Trump administration pushes hard to develop the next generation of nuclear power, including billions in loans for large nuclear reactors to meet skyrocketing power demand from data centers and a pilot program to boost advanced reactor designs and projects for military and civilian use. No nuclear microreactors are supplying power to the commercial electric grid in the United States today.

    Five companies selected by the Army will be awarded up to $2.2 billion in total over five years to own, construct and operate the microreactors, if they hit set milestones along the way for their performance. The Army expects that more than 20 nuclear microreactors will be built and operated.

    Army and industry officials say microreactors offer a resilient power source for critical infrastructure at military installations in case the grid fails. Reactors can run for years without refueling.

    Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said the awards will accelerate the military’s ability “to deliver safe, reliable baseload power directly to our installations. We are building the energy resilience necessary to project combat power globally, without relying on potentially vulnerable external grids,” he said.

    The grants are part of the Army's “Janus Program” launched last year to deliver next-generation nuclear energy. Officials hope to push nuclear development forward so that advanced reactor designs move beyond experiments and prototypes to provide power for years to come. This will be the “spear tip,” said Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment.

    “That is the transition that we are trying to effect here,” he said on a call with reporters Wednesday. “These are not meant to be Army-specific designs.”

    Critics of building more nuclear reactors say they’re too expensive and riskier than other energy sources. The Army program is using the military's “deep pockets to provide a hidden subsidy” to nuclear companies that can't find private-sector customers for their hypothetical and uneconomical reactors, said Alan J. Kuperman, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project.

    The reactors will be licensed by the Army, rather than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses commercial nuclear reactors. Kuperman said it's “a dangerous scam on many levels.”

    Waksman said these reactors will shut down safely in case of a failure, they're small and the Army wouldn't add them to installations without being certain they are safe. He said the Army is working on a deal with the Energy Department to remove radioactive waste, and there won't be any long-term storage on these installations.

    The Army is working to align its regulatory processes as much as possible, Waksman said, so that companies won’t need major changes to their designs to be later licensed by the NRC. Along with federal funding, the Army expects billions of dollars in private capital investment.

    Army leads the military’s adoption of nuclear energy

    President Donald Trump signed executive orders in May 2025 to speed up the development of nuclear power. The Army was tasked with ensuring that an advanced reactor would start operating at a domestic military installation no later than Sept. 30, 2028. The Janus program is named for the ancient Roman god of transitions.

    Officials know that delivering nuclear power to a military base will be a challenge, so they picked five companies in case one or more fail, Waksman said. The selected companies are: Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg in North Carolina; BWXT at Fort Campbell in Kentucky; General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems at Fort Hood in Texas; Radiant Industries at Fort Benning in Georgia; and Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum in New York.

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Army to select Fort Drum. The critical missions Fort Drum supports require secure power generation, the New York Democrat said.

    The military installations will remain connected to the grid. The reactors would not completely power them. Each reactor will provide between 1 megawatt to 20 megawatts of power, depending on the company's design. Major bases use as much power as a small city. Antares and Radiant are planning to deliver their reactors in three-packs, Waksman said.

    The Army now uses diesel as a primary backup for critical infrastructure. But in a conflict, Waksman said, the Army may not be able to move fossil fuels easily wherever it needs them.

    “That makes nuclear energy just a natural game changer,” he said. “It makes sense for the Army to take the lead here.”

    A reactor at Fort Belvoir in Virginia, completed in 1957, was the first nuclear power reactor to provide electricity to a commercial power grid in the United States for an extended period, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    Companies say this will accelerate US nuclear development

    California-based Antares reached a crucial milestone under the U.S. pilot program that could allow it to produce electricity at Idaho National Lab next year. The company said the Army's announcement extends its momentum. Westinghouse Government Services said it’s proud to support the Army’s efforts to strengthen energy security and innovate.

    Tori Shivanandan, president and chief operating officer of California-based Radiant, said the Army’s $750 million award “shows confidence in Radiant’s product and ability to manufacture, deploy and safely operate nuclear microreactors for the American military.” The Janus program “will build a stronger and more resilient America,” she said.

    General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems said its reactor is designed to operate in remote, off-grid and extreme environments for 40 years. It said it will draw on more than 70 years of nuclear expertise to provide safe, dependable and independent power for the military.

    Rex Geveden, BWXT's president and chief executive officer, said, “As we commence work on the Janus program, we are delivering the nation’s most credible and reliable path to deployable nuclear power.”

    Energy giant Shell lists Houston HQ for sale for $325 million

    asset offload

    Energy giant Shell has put its U.S. headquarters in Houston’s Energy Corridor on the market and is exploring the sale of its U.S. chemical business.

    Green Street News reported Shell just listed its longtime Energy Corridor campus at 150 N. Dairy Ashford Road. The asking price is $325 million, The Real Deal reported. Shell plans to lease back half of the nearly 1.5 million-square-foot Woodcreek campus for 15 years.

    A sale-leaseback deal could transform the 43.6-acre campus into a multitenant hub, CoStar News reported.

    “Houston is a critical hub for Shell globally and the headquarters of our U.S. businesses,” a Shell spokesperson told the Houston Business Journal. “We remain committed to Houston and are evaluating opportunities to optimize our Woodcreek campus as part of our ongoing review of workplace needs while maintaining a strong presence in the city.”

    Shell occupied its first building at the West Houston campus in 1980. The company employs more than 6,000 people in Texas.

    Shell is one of the highest-profile businesses occupying space in the Energy Corridor. It’s home to 67,000 workers, more than 27 million square feet of office and mixed-use space, and 3.8 million square feet of retail and restaurant space.

    Shell considers $8B sale of chemical business

    As the company seeks to unload its Woodcreek campus, The Financial Times reported Shell is looking into selling its U.S. chemical business. The price tag: $8 billion.

    Potential buyers include Spring-based ExxonMobil and Houston-based LyondellBasell.

    Shell operates four chemical plants in Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, producing an array of chemicals for use in plastics, detergents and pharmaceuticals.

    Shell CEO Wael Sawan said last year that the company had spent $45 billion in capital “that is underperforming for us,” split between its chemical business and renewable energy arm.

    Shell also agreed to sell its solar and wind power business in India this summer. Read more here.

    View All Listings