Q2 reports ‘rsted’ in condition; percentage worth 46% year-on-year.
Free money in the second quarter $716 million, compared to $657 million in the second quarter of 2019.
It has headwinds due to COVID-19; $2.5-2.7 billion.
The company will submit an offer of 5.4 to 9.5 GW of offshore wind power on the east coast of the United States until the end of 2021. ‘rsted’ is compatible with green hydrogen in Europe.
It is a healthy, confident company with a transparent vision for the future. Careful consideration is required, especially by oil and fuel investors.
Source: offshore wind farm
Recently, I looked back at the oil and fuel primaries, especially Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM), as it is divided into the long-term fossil fuels, while the Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS) European oil and fuel primaries. A)) (NYSE: RDS. B), BP (NYSE: BP) and Total (NYSE: TOT) are starting to think about a long-term, broadcast-free. Commentators have challenged me to propose features for investments of choice beyond the oil and fuel primaries. While the sun industry offers attractive opportunities (e.g. Enphase (NASDAQ: ENPH) increases by 142% year-on-year, First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR) increases by 26% in a year), the sun is, however, a rapid conversion scenario with many imaginable interruptions. I believe that a new main direction for the energy movement is wind energy, that is, offshore wind energy. Unlike the sun industry, where new entrants can change the rules of the game and where China poses challenges, Europe’s giant wind industry has wonderful engineering and significant entry barriers. Here I update on ‘ersted’ (OTCPK: DNNGY), which is the world’s most giant offshore wind developer. While the annual (year-over-year) effects of the main fuels and oil discussed above are lousy (XOM drops by 36% year-on-year; Shell drops 45% year-on-year; BP drops 37% year-on-year year-on-year per year; and Total dropped 18% year-over-year), ‘rsted’ rose 46% year-over-year (despite COVID-19), making it a satisfied story. It is not a flash in the pan as shown through the functionality of ‘ersted’ during the more than 3 years. Long-term investors might think about the effect this can have on their investment decisions.
In terms of modeling any long-term era with negative electric power values, again, that’s all we’re doing. In fact, this is a very confusing exercise with a very complex dynamic between the source and demand of electricity markets. On the one hand, more and more renewable capacity will put pressure on values. On the other hand, we will also see a giant component of capacity that will be removed from the fossil and nuclear aspect of the equation and, more importantly, we expect to see a fairly significant expansion in electricity demand over the next 10 years. 20 years of company evolution. through a fairly complete electrification route, bringing electrification not only to maritime transport but also to commercial and heating processes. This, combined with greater flexibility in the calling aspect, gives us some confidence that we will continue to see healthy advances in the value of our markets when we adopt some kind of 15- or 20-year trading view.
Compare the above with the tone and content of the discussion about XOM Q2 results.
I am a monetary adviser, but I largely stick to new advances as the energy and transport industries begin to move away from fossil fuels and become electrified. If my comment is helping you and your monetary advisor see the transformation of power as more than just a fossil fuel factor and staring at the end of the year, then feel free to follow me.