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...

▲

Ajedi32 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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 an hour ago | parent [-]

"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 an hour ago | parent [-]

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Unless the subsidies being repealed explains why TotalEnergies seems happy to get out of the lease now even though they presumably thought it was a good deal for them back when they originally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.

	▲	nieve 9 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They were stuck in a never-ending series of legal battles because the current administration is trying to block all wind power, so their money was not actually going anywhere useful. Coincidentally Trump hates wind power and is still bringing up his golf course having some offshore wind near it after years.
	▲	beepbooptheory 18 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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!