The global energy sector is transitioning, with major oilfield service companies under pressure to cut emissions while staying profitable. Baker Hughes, Halliburton, and Schlumberger (SLB) recently reported their earnings.
However, here we reveal how each company is balancing investments in oil, gas, and low-carbon initiatives. Thus, beyond financials, their sustainability goals and net-zero targets set them apart.
Let’s dive in.
Baker Hughes Reports Mixed Q1 2025 Results
Baker Hughes reported $6.43 billion in revenue for the first quarter of 2025. This marked a 13% drop from the previous quarter but a slight increase of $9 million compared to a year ago. The year-over-year growth was mainly due to stronger performance in Industrial & Energy Technology (IET), partially offset by weaker results in Oilfield Services & Equipment (OFSE).
Net income under U.S. GAAP was $402 million, down $777 million from the previous quarter and $53 million lower year-over-year. However, adjusted net income, which excludes certain items, stood at $509 million. This was also down 27% from the previous quarter but up 19% compared to last year.
Advances in Pipeline Compression and Data Center Power
It also secured a major pipeline project in North America, supplying two compression stations with 10 Frame 5/2E turbines and compressors.
Additionally, in data centers, the company won contracts for over 350 MW of NovaLT™ turbines. It partnered with Frontier Infrastructure to deliver large-scale carbon capture and clean power solutions using its full technology suite.
Lorenzo Simonelli, Baker Hughes chairman and chief executive officer, said,
“Baker Hughes started the year strong, building on the positive momentum from 2024 and setting multiple first-quarter records. Our continued transformation initiatives and strong execution continue to drive structural margin improvement across both segments. The operational transformation and streamlining efforts have created a solid foundation to optimize margins and enhance returns, even in a challenging environment.”
Driving Sustainability Forward: Baker Hughes’ 2024 Progress
Baker Hughes continues to lead the energy transition by striving to become a sustainable pioneer across all its operations. It aims to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.
Major Progress on Emissions Reduction
The company reported strong environmental achievements this year:
- Scope 1 and 2 emissions dropped 29.3 percent compared to the 2019 base year, reaching 564,728 metric tons of CO2e.
- Scope 1 emissions, covering fleet, field activities, and facilities, declined by 22.6 percent to 386,367 metric tons of CO2e.
- Scope 2 emissions from purchased electricity decreased by 40.6 percent (market-based) and 30.7 percent (location-based).
Despite these achievements, it recorded a 16.5% increase in Scope 3 emissions intensity, mainly due to higher demand for high-efficiency gas turbines and electric motors.
Hands-On Approach to Emissions Reduction
Baker Hughes prioritizes direct emissions reduction over carbon offsets or virtual power purchase agreements. It improves energy efficiency, integrates renewable electricity across facilities, and deploys low-carbon technologies.
Additionally, it supports ecosystem projects through the Baker Hughes Foundation. However, these initiatives are not used for carbon credits. This hands-on approach ensures tangible, measurable progress and strengthens the company’s commitment to sustainability.
Carbon-Free Clean Energy
- In 2024, Baker Hughes advanced clean energy adoption using renewable or zero-carbon electricity. Its use rose from 13.5% in 2019 to 34.2% in 2024.
- On-site solar has expanded to 15 sites, and renewable and nuclear energy use has cut emissions by 89,734 metric tons of CO2e since 2019.
Key Highlights:
- The Woodlands, Texas, and Broussard, Louisiana, sites fully transitioned to 100% renewable electricity.
- In Thailand, the partnership with Cleantech enabled on-site solar panels to generate about 18% of the site’s annual electricity.
Nuclear energy plays a huge role in the company’s low-carbon future. It supports conventional nuclear power and small modular reactors. It emphasizes safety, community involvement, and efficient waste management while ensuring reliable operations.
Thus, the strategic use of renewable energy credits, Zero-Emission Certificates, and local certificates supported these improvements.
Halliburton Posts Lower Q1 2025 Earnings as North America Revenue Falls
Halliburton Company reported a net income of $204 million, or $0.24 per diluted share, for the first quarter of 2025. This marked a sharp decline from $606 million, or $0.68 per share, in the same period last year.
When adjusted for impairments and other charges, Q1 2025 net income came in at $517 million, or $0.60 per share, down from $679 million, or $0.76 per share, in Q1 2024.
Total revenue for the quarter dropped to $5.4 billion from $5.8 billion last year. Operating income was $431 million, down from $987 million a year ago.
Geographical Revenue Highlights
In North America, revenue dropped 12% to $2.2 billion due to lower stimulation activity in the US Land and fewer tool sales in the Gulf.
International revenue dipped 2% to $3.2 billion. Latin America revenue fell 19% to $896 million from slower activity in Mexico and lower tool sales. However, Europe/Africa revenue rose 6% to $775 million, driven by stronger activity in Norway, Namibia, and the Caspian.
Jeff Miller, Chairman, President, and CEO, said,
“I am pleased with our performance in the first quarter. We delivered total company revenue of $5.4 billion and adjusted operating margin of 14.5%. Our first quarter international tender activity was strong, Halliburton won meaningful integrated offshore work extending through 2026 and beyond. Customers awarded Halliburton several contracts that demonstrate the strength of our value proposition and the power of our service quality execution.”
Halliburton’s Emissions and Clean Energy Progress
Halliburton is committed to reducing emissions to help the oil and gas industry become cleaner.
It aims to:
- Cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 40% by 2035 from 2018 levels
- Work with top suppliers to track and reduce Scope 3 emissions
Low-Carbon Electric Fracturing Fleets
Hydraulic fracturing made up 80% of its emissions. As demand in North America rose, total Scope 1 and 2 emissions increased by 2% from the previous year. However, since 2018, it has lowered its emissions per operating hour by 16% by investing in electric fracturing fleets.
The company now uses smarter fracturing tools that give customers more power options and better efficiency. It’s also reusing older equipment in smarter ways to lower emissions and boost returns.
Strong Climate Commitments
Last year, the company focused on three areas to lower its carbon footprint. They were:
- Helping oil and gas customers lower their emissions
- Using its skills for low-carbon projects like carbon capture and geothermal
- Backing startups through Halliburton Labs to support new energy ideas
Notably, they are also using the carbon assessment tool on big projects in Mexico, Norway, Iraq, and Namibia. It identified possible emissions from equipment, transport, and its products. This helps customers plan cleaner operations from the start.
Growing in Low-Carbon Solutions
Halliburton has invested largely in carbon capture, geothermal, and other low-carbon energy projects. Some notable projects in these fields include:
Carbon Capture (CCUS)
As said before, it works with customers to offer full CCUS solutions. These include tools like the NeoStar™ CS safety valve and CorrosaLock™ cement, built for harsh CO₂ storage conditions. Halliburton is also teaming up with other energy players to develop more CCUS options.
Geothermal Energy
Being a pioneer in geothermal, it supports every stage of a geothermal project from testing and drilling to production. In 2024, it offered tools like GeoESP® pumps and Thermalock™ cement for hot, tough environments. It also provided strong drill bits, smart drilling fluids, and custom well designs for deep, complex projects.
Schlumberger (SLB) Q1 Update: Revenue Drops, But Digital and Cash Flow Stay Strong
SLB reported $8.49 billion in revenue for the quarter, down 3% compared to last year. Net income also dropped 25%, landing at $797 million.
- GAAP earnings per share (EPS) came in at $0.58, down 22%.
- Adjusted EPS, excluding one-time items, was $0.72, a 4% decrease.
- Adjusted EBITDA stood at $2.02 billion, down 2%.
However, cash flow from operations surged to $660 million, up $333 million year on year. The board also approved a $0.285 per share quarterly dividend.
SLB Chief Executive Officer, Olivier Le Peuch, commented,
“First-quarter adjusted EBITDA margin was slightly up year on year despite softer revenue as we continued to navigate the evolving market dynamics.
It was a subdued start to the year as revenue declined 3% year on year. Higher activity in parts of the Middle East, North Africa, Argentina and offshore U.S., along with strong growth in our data center infrastructure solutions and digital businesses in North America, were more than offset by a sharper-than-expected slowdown in Mexico, a slow start to the year in Saudi Arabia and offshore Africa, and steep decline in Russia.”
Core Business Shows Bright Spots Amid Slowdown
While overall revenue in SLB’s core divisions slipped 4%, some segments performed well.
- Production Systems revenue rose 4% with growing demand for surface production systems, completions, and artificial lift.
- Margins improved by nearly 2 percentage points.
- Reservoir Performance benefited from strong international stimulation and intervention work, though lower evaluation activity held it back.
CEO Olivier Le Peuch noted that despite lower rig activity, SLB’s diverse portfolio helped soften the blow.
Digital and AI Business Keeps Gaining Momentum
SLB’s digital division continued to grow strongly, separate from the usual ups and downs of the oil and gas cycle.
- Digital revenue jumped 17% year on year.
- Overall, Digital & Integration revenue rose 6%.
Le Peuch said more energy companies are investing in digital tools and AI to boost performance and unlock value from their data. SLB plans to keep expanding its offerings in AI, cloud, and digital operations.
Shareholder Returns Set to Rise in 2025
Looking ahead, SLB promised to return at least $4 billion to shareholders in 2025 through dividends and buybacks.
- The company plans to give back more than half of its free cash flow.
Even with market uncertainties, such as shifting economic conditions and oil price changes, SLB remains focused on protecting margins, maintaining strong cash flow, and delivering steady value.
SLB’s Clear Climate Goals with Measurable Progress
SLB is firmly committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and has laid out clear targets to guide its journey. The company aims to cut its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 30% by 2025 and by 50% by 2030. It also targets a 30% reduction in Scope 3 emissions by the end of the decade.
Progress Highlights in 2024:
In FY2024, SLB’s total emissions from Scope 1, 2, and 3 were 36,115 thousand metric tons. This shows a steady decline from 40,123 thousand metric tons in FY2023 and 49,098 thousand metric tons in FY2019. Overall, the company has reduced its total emissions by about 26% since FY2019.
- Scope 1 and 2 market-based emissions intensity dropped by 11%. They stood at 990 thousand metric tons and 373 thousand metric tons, respectively.
- Scope 3 emissions intensity reduced by 18%. They were 34,855 thousand metric tons.
- 38% of the electricity used at SLB’s global sites came from renewable sources
Cleaner Operations, Smarter Tools
In 2024, SLB cut Scope 1 emissions by rolling out its Field Fuel Playbook. This guide helped teams monitor fuel use, cut idling, and choose cleaner fuels. Employees used it to improve planning and reduce waste across operations.
For example, PumpIRIS™ was rolled out to cut pump idling in field jobs. The pilot avoided over 3,000 metric tons of CO₂e and saved nearly $1 million annually.
The company also helped clients avoid more than 950,000 metric tons of CO₂e in 2024. Its new Digital Sustainability tools support climate action in industries that are hard to decarbonize
Building the Future with Clean Tech
The company’s New Energy business moved forward in 2024, focusing on key technologies that support the energy transition:
- SLB Capturi, a joint venture with Aker Carbon Capture, launched to scale up carbon capture using modular systems. Three projects are underway, and two sites near Norway’s Northern Lights carbon storage hub are already using SLB services.
- In Nevada, a lithium demo plant showed how to make battery-grade lithium carbonate with 96% recovery from brine, using 90% less land and far less water. The plant combines direct lithium extraction with advanced processing, and it’s now ready to scale up.
- New modeling tools were launched to help clients manage lithium-brine resources more efficiently and sustainably.
Boosting Geothermal in the Philippines
Using CoilTools™, SLB revived five geothermal wells in Leyte without drilling. This added 14 MW of power and supports the Philippines’ 2030 target of 3,200 MW.
These goals reflect SLB’s long-term strategy to lower its carbon footprint and support the global transition to clean energy.
We can see that scope 3 emissions are a major concern for the oilfield service companies, and their sustainability approach is significantly strong. Even though their revenues are moderately down, we expect the top oilfield giants like Baker Hughes, Halliburton, and Schlumberger to drive a sustainable change in this sector.
The post Oilfield Giants Walk a Tightrope: Q1 Profits, Emissions & the Race to Net Zero appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits