It's time for a trip down the rabbit hole.

I had one of those conversations this morning with a very polite spokeswoman in the Shell press office that leaves you trying to decide whether it is the Valium or the scotch that you should reach for first.

I began the exchange by suggesting that the decision to pull out of the world's largest offshore wind project could perhaps be interpreted as an indication that the company's commitment to renewable energy had become somewhat equivocal. Alas, I was wrong.

Apparently the "strategic decision" to consider selling off the oil giant's stake in the London Array should not be seen as a sign that its commitment to alternative energy is on the slide. In fact, Shell remains a staunch supporter of renewables through investments in 11 wind energy projects in the US and Europe, as well as various biofuel, solar and hydrogen fuel cell projects.

Shell's proposed disposal of its stake in the Thames Array is simply down to an "ongoing review of projects and investment choices" that has resulted in it deciding to focus a bit more on the US as its preferred location for future wind energy investments, in part because of the incentives on offer there.

Which surely implies that the UK government has not been generous enough in its support for offshore wind?

Nope, wrong again (and I hope you are following this, because by this point the task of following this Boris Johnson-esque master class in circuitous logic was proving a bit disorienting). The spokeswoman insisted the government has been great and that it is not just the incentives that have attracted Shell to the US, it is just that it is better equipped over there to make a success of wind energy projects.

So the UK is less well equipped to deliver these wind energy projects?

Erm, wrong again. If you believe what Shell told The Guardian it still reckons the UK remains a great place to invest in wind, claiming that the government has developed a "positive" policy framework and that it is "hopeful" the London Array project "will proceed as planned". Well, not quite as planned obviously, but let's not sweat the small stuff.

It took Shell's partner on the project, E.ON, to cut through the Dr Seuss levels of surrealism and deliver a hefty dose of reality. Shell would not divulge what had prompted its "strategic decision", but Dr Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON had no such qualms in revealing both how "disappointed" he was with Shell and how risky the project has now become.

"The current economics of the project are marginal at best," he explained. "With rising steel prices, bottlenecks in turbine supply and competition from the rest of the world all moving against us."

It is in the light of this information that it becomes clear what Shell means when it says it wants to focus on "capital discipline and efficiency", but why couldn't the oil giant come out and say that itself.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Shell ditching this project – it clearly reckons that with oil at $120 a barrel it can make more money elsewhere and that's its own prerogative (Although, I'd also hazard that when you are making £7.2bn a year and are under intense political and commercial pressure to diversify your energy mix towards renewable energy then the brand and experience benefits it would have gained from being involved in the world's largest offshore wind project would have far outweighed any short term economic hit it might have to take on the investment).

No, what really grates is the lack of transparency behind the decision. Had Shell come out and said we don't feel this project is economical when compared to drilling for tar in Canada or even investing in wind farms in the US then we could have had the debate that is so desperately needed about how to make projects such as the Thames Array compelling to investors.

We could have asked what needs to be done to tackle the supply chain and planning issues that have dogged the project from day one. We could have asked why when the government has recently increased the incentives for offshore wind it has still not proved sufficient to keep one of the project's main backers on board. And most importantly we could of asked how we can make renewable energy a more attractive investment proposition when compared to fossil fuels.

Instead, we are once again left with a fudged statement praising the "positive policy and support framework for offshore wind projects" in the UK, while at the same time the underlying structural and economic faults that have meant the UK has thus far failed to exploit the best wind profile in Europe remain in place.

The simple fact is that Shell and the government need to climb out of this particular rabbit hole and accept that the policy and support framework was obviously not positive enough and as a result a project that could provide clean energy to a quarter of London's homes is now at risk of serious delays and even outright failure.