Ørsted's offshore EBITDA excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees was DKK 11.9 billion in H1 2026 versus DKK 10.3 billion in H1 2025, primarily driven by higher wind speeds and higher prices.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
What would count as true or false
True if Ørsted's H1 2026 interim report shows offshore EBITDA excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees of DKK 11.9 billion for H1 2026 against DKK 10.3 billion for H1 2025, and attributes the increase mainly to higher wind speeds and prices. Mostly true if the figures are within ±0.1 billion or the stated drivers differ slightly. Mixed if one figure is materially off, or the attribution is materially different. False if the figures do not match at all.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (3)
-
E1 Ørsted reports solid operational performance in first half of 2026 WindTech International · 13 August 2026
“Offshore EBITDA excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees amounted to DKK 11.9 billion in the first half of 2026, compared with DKK 10.3 billion in the same period last year. The increase was mainly driven by higher wind speeds and higher prices.”
-
E2 [PDF] Interim financial report H1 2026.pub - Ørsted Ørsted A/S · 13 August 2026 Own record
“Earnings from our offshore sites amounted to DKK 13.0 billion, an increase of 5 % compared to H1 2025, primarily driven by higher wind speeds.”
-
E3 [PDF] Interim financial report H1 2026.pub - Ørsted Ørsted A/S · 13 August 2026 Own record
“EBITDA excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees amounted to DKK 15.0 billion in H1 2026, compared to DKK 13.9 billion in H1 2025.”
Reasoning
An independent trade report published on the claim date [E1] gives offshore EBITDA excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees as DKK 11.9 billion for H1 2026 against DKK 10.3 billion for H1 2025, with the increase mainly driven by higher wind speeds and higher prices. This matches the claim's figures and stated drivers. The interim report excerpts [E2, E3] do not show the offshore segment figures directly, but they are consistent with it: group EBITDA on the same basis was DKK 15.0 billion versus 13.9 billion, and offshore site earnings rose mainly on higher wind speeds.
Cite this claim
Ørsted, “Ørsted's offshore EBITDA excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees was DKK 11.9 billion in H1 2026 versus DKK 10.3 billion in H1 2025, primarily driven by higher wind speeds and higher prices.” (said 13 August 2026). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_a0f045d638c9, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_a0f045d638c9
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Ørsted
-
Mostly true
“The increase was primarily driven by earnings from the construction agreement for Hornsea 3.”
-
Resolved true
“Net profit for the period totalled DKK 2.6 billion. This was affected by non-cash tax effects and impairments due to the higher long-dated US interest rates.”
-
Resolved true
“At present, Ørsted operates 15.5 GW of renewable energy assets, while 4.9 GW are under construction across technologies.”
Ørsted currently operates 15.5 GW of renewable energy assets, with 4.9 GW under construction.
-
Resolved true
“was the first energy company in the world to have its science-based net-zero emissions target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)”
-
Mixed
“Being named the world’s most sustainable energy company for now three years in a row, it’s our aspiration to be a globally recognised sustainability leader”
Ørsted has been named the world's most sustainable energy company three years in a row.
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.