Finally, Larry Fink has recognized the flaw in his aggressive ESG rhetoric. Maybe he knew this all along, but it is good to see him step into the debate in favor of not crippling the fossil fuel industry by denying it access to capital and investors too quickly. However, that boat may have sailed, with investors like Engine No. 1 feeling empowered by their win over ExxonMobil and raising more money as a consequence. We have covered this subject at length in our ESG and climate weekly this week: Big Oil’s Big Problem – Hard To Find A Favorable Scenario – maybe Larry read it!
The Navigator CCS announcement is extraordinary in its boldness and potential lack of any real chance of economic success. The idea of building 1200 miles of high-pressure CO2 pipe (See exhibit below) to collect small volumes from corn-based ethanol producers and potentially have multiple sequestration sites is extremely expensive and would not begin to be covered by the 45Q tax credit, which would easily be consumed by the compression and pipeline costs alone. If some of the ethanol is making it into the LCFS markets, each ethanol producer that has some material heading that way will want a piece of the pie and if each had to jointly file with CARB, with Navigator, for what would be small portions of the overall ethanol output, the administration might be overwhelming, as would be a chain of custody process which satisfies CARB. Navigator is not an altruist fund and consequently, must see a way to make a return on the idea. This may be based on the hope that LCFS or something like it will spread to other states.
In today's ESG and Climate report we discuss the issues facing the oil industry and present several possible scenarios focused around activist behavior and government behavior – none of the outcomes are pretty and the most likely one is quite concerning. The activists seem to be laser-focused on reducing the production of fossil fuel, but they are arguing for a timeline that is impractical and very inflationary – right now they are winning and they are changing the hearts and minds of investors, both public and in some cases private, but perhaps more important, they are influencing insurers. The fossil fuel industry needs to clean up its act, no doubt, and based on the chart below it is trying harder, but a transition period is necessary to prevent hyper-inflation not just in fossil fuel prices but also in renewables, as they would not be able to keep up with an aggressive cut back in fossil fuel production today – which is what activists are pushing for.
We talked about the Dutch ruling against Shell in yesterday's report and the latest refinery sale in the US is another indication of one of the risks of unilateral court-based decisions. Shell could easily get to lower emissions by divesting assets, as can anyone else with a medium-term emission target on the books. We have written previously about the possibility of an energy equivalent of the “bad bank” structure that was set up during the financial crisis, where emissions challenged assets are divested into either private entities or public holding companies that have mandates to improve excessive emission pools but also have significant cash flows and pay investors to wait.
The Dow, LyondellBasell, Nova, Closed Loop Partners announcement yesterday is worth some thoughts. Closed Loop Partners is a PE company focused on funding recycling opportunities, but by its nature, it is relatively risk-averse as it has return goals to meet for its investors – to date its investments have been low-hanging fruit and niche in nature, but steps in the right direction nonetheless. The investment from the majors perhaps gives Closed Loop some wiggle room to look at projects that are less of a sure thing and maybe require a leap of faith on untested technologies or at least technologies untested at scale – primarily in sorting and identifying polymers and cleaning. We would still expect each project to be small, simply because access to the clean and easily sorted polyethylene and polypropylene in the US is limited by very poor standards of recycling and the vast proportion of unrecyclable polymer that ends up in a waste stream. If the group can find locations with significant supply, it might be wise to build pyrolysis at the same site to deal with everything that cannot be recycled. Our hope for this investment is that it is not simply an ESG PR opportunity for the polymer producers and that it does the following:
With little chemical corporate news of note, we will focus on ExxonMobil today. The shareholder activism may be high but it is unclear to us what the activists hope to achieve, even if they are successful at the annual meeting. The ESG investment group has largely given up on energy and even if ExxonMobil changes strategy and agrees to spend more on carbon abatement it is unlikely that new investors will show up, especially if the new strategy is more costly. Despite all of its directional change and rhetoric, bp has underperformed ExxonMobil since Mr. Looney took the helm in early 2020. If ExxonMobil were to follow the bp playbook, it is not clear that shareholders would benefit.
There is a broad technology theme to the articles that we have chosen today, which is in keeping with one of the core conclusions of the IEA report earlier this week. The IEA is estimating that roughly half of the path to net-zero will require technologies still in the test phase, or in some cases still conceptual. The Dow headline around ethane dehydrogenation and electric furnaces is a good example. Both technologies could lower the carbon footprint of making ethylene, but the dehydrogenation route will require some catalyst or other breakthrough as current propane dehydrogenation technologies require a lot of heat. The electric furnace idea is complex and would require extremely high levels of power, all of which would have to be renewable for the carbon footprint to fall – this type of technology is likely implied in the BASF announcement today. The IEA talked about some of the transition moves required to allow the technology advances time to become either commercial or cost effective, or both. Carbon capture features meaningfully in the IEA plans, but the study has carbon capture volume rising through 2050, which we find odd. The idea of carbon capture is to act as a bridge between where we are today and where we could be once new technology is developed – therefore, while companies like Dow should be aiming for technologies that lower the carbon production of its processes, carbon capture should be an almost immediate bridge to lower emissions while both the technology is developed, and its costs are reduced. Carbon capture needs should then decline. View today's Daily Report for more.
The coverage of the IEA study continues with lots of opinions, which is a good sign as it means that the work is being taken seriously.
We discussed the IEA report yesterday at some length, but in such a comprehensive report we missed a couple of things that are probably worth noting today. See more in our ESG Report today.
There are too many important topics to choose from today and we will cover many of these in our ESG and Climate report tomorrow. Here we focus on the IEA report published this week, which shows a path to net-zero on a global scale and looks at both the fossil fuel consuming sectors and the rate at which each must change (they are different by sector) and what fuel alternatives will be needed to replace them. Our review of the work would suggest the following: