It is interesting to watch the pivot between recycled versus virgin polymer to the carbon footprint of the various options as outlined in the chart below. We are assuming that the numbers in the chart are averages as there is a sizeable range for everything. As we note in today's daily report, ethylene feedstock will impact the carbon footprint of ethylene and consequently, the footprint of polyethylene – HDPE made from ethane based ethylene in the US where the ethylene producer is recycling hydrogen back into the furnaces, will have a much lower carbon footprint than HDPE made from naphtha based ethylene in Europe, for example. On the recycling side, there will also be a range based on transportation costs for collection and sorting and then distribution to a customer.
ExxonMobil is seriously upping its lower-carbon game with the CCS announcements over the last few weeks and the release this week that states the company will spend $15 billion over the next 6 years on lower carbon initiatives. In this linked headline ExxonMobil states that it will meet its 2025 emission goals this year – we are assuming that this must be correct as the company would not want to risk the accusation of greenwashing. Either way, the critics will weigh in, either claiming “greenwashing” or suggesting that the targets were not high enough, to begin with. The ExxonMobil focus is very much on CCS, which makes sense for an oil and gas-centric company whose only real play right now is to lower the carbon footprint of its fuel portfolio. In the release linked above, ExxonMobil also talks about biofuel and hydrogen initiatives, but again calls for supportive policies from governments and we suspect that the underlying push here is towards the US government. ExxonMobil and others have indicated that $100 per ton is the right incentive to drive CCS and other carbon abatement strategies and we would agree with this estimate as it backs up much of the work that we have done over the last year. See - Carbon: Trading, Offsets, and CCS as a Service – It’s All Coming! and - Carbon Games – Appetite, But Not Enough Hunger Yet. The other reason why ExxonMobil and others would like to see the US act is because other jurisdictions in which they operate will likely take a lead from the US.
We want to focus on carbon use today, in part because we have written extensively on sequestration recently, in part because of the headline highlighted below, and in part, because we need something fresh for our ESG and Climate report tomorrow! Carbon use does not get much press beyond EOR, but there are emerging technologies and there is a lot of R&D spending – on how to collect CO2 more efficiently and on what it might then be used for. We suspect that almost everything being looked at will have some application, but that there will be limits to those applications and they will likely be niches in nature, but not necessarily unprofitable.
A couple of things worth highlighting in today's daily report – the first being Chevron’s move to join the net-zero club – focusing all eyes now on ExxonMobil in particular but also the rest of the US E&P crowd. Chevron will have some major challenges getting to net-zero and will likely face much of the same skepticism that bp, Shell, and TotalEnergies attracted in Europe initially and still face today. The Europeans have placed a lot of their bets on moving into renewable power – for the moment, Chevron is focused on moving to net zero in its own operations, which we read as biofuels and a lot of CCS. Given the acute shortage of international natural gas, it would make the most sense for the independent natural gas E&P companies and the LNG sellers to jump on the same boat. By promising low carbon natural gas and LNG, the industry is much more likely to gain support for the expansion that the world needs to counter some of the EIA assumptions around coal and petroleum product use from 2030 to 2050. Of course, it would be a whole lot easier for the US industry to do this if they had a value on carbon to work with! The chart below looks at one of the core clean-up issues, which is methane leakage. This is a subject we cover extensively in our ESG and Climate service linked here.
We have maintained all year that the strength in the European carbon price is sustainable and that it should go even higher and consequently, we are not surprised by this week’s move, even if much of the impetus is speculation. The European price is still not high enough to justify unsubsidized CCS or widespread renewable power investments to replace carbon-heavy energy sources, especially as renewable power costs rise. We estimate that a price in the €85-100 per metric ton range would be needed to stimulate investment, but because of the structure of the European market prices could overshoot this level meaningfully and be quite volatile until the level of abatement spending accelerates. When we start seeing investments in Europe to lower carbon that are not highly subsidized by local governments (in addition to the incentive of the carbon price) we will have a better guide around where 45Q needs to go in the US (or other mechanisms) to get investments rolling. Our analysis suggests that the US has some lower-cost abatement opportunities than Europe, especially on the CCS front, but not by much. For more on carbon costs and prices see today's ESG & Climate report.
The Talos release and the map shown in the Exhibit below, highlight some of the potential for offshore CCS along the US Gulf Coast. We will likely see some of this developed over time, in our view, but the question of cost is important, not because the US Gulf is likely to be more expensive than some of the offshore locations that are proposed for Europe, but because the same offshore geology on the US Gulf exists onshore, and the onshore opportunities will likely be much lower cost. Given that one of the overriding concerns around carbon abatement is cost and how it will be paid for, who will pay for it ultimately, and what it means for the competitive landscape, finding the lowest cost solutions will be key. This is something that we have covered at length in our dedicated ESG and climate research. Building high-pressure pipelines is expensive, and high relative to the onshore cost of sequestration. Talos might find interest from CO2 suppliers but may be undercut by onshore projects – assuming these get the green light from regulators – not giving them the green light would likely be imposing further unnecessary costs on industry.
As we sift through the positioning for the upcoming COP26 meeting and the attention focusing report from the IPCC this week, it is a reasonable question to ask what this means for the plastic waste issue. If governments, lobbyists, and activists are likely to be more focused on climate change action over the next few years, which seems to be a reasonable conclusion, will there be the bandwidth for plastic waste? The plastic waste issue is less open to interpretation than the climate change issue and is a visible problem for all, but if governments need to prioritize where they spend their incremental dollar, and/or where they provide incentives of penalties, the climate is going to be pushed to the front of the line in our view. Plastics producers will have to deal with emissions, like any other industrial user of power and heat. The risk is that local governments, looking for revenue to support climate initiatives see taxing virgin plastic (or unrecycled plastic) as a way to both push plastic waste initiatives forward and raise revenue. Adding a plastic tax in the US to the superfund proposal in the infrastructure bill would be hitting the chemicals industry from two sides and would give bodies like the ACC far more grounds for pushback. For more on the IPCC analysis see our ESG & Climate Change report from this week.
We believe that the plastics industry is right to get as much state backing for chemical recycling as it can – see Louisiana headline and diagram below. While chemical recycling is not as neat as mechanical recycling, it has far more chance of dealing with the core issue, which is the disposal of plastic waste – see report linked here. Our support for chemical recycling stems from the view that it will be very hard to get the behavioral change needed to ramp up mechanical recycling quickly and to a level that will impact waste.
There are some serious players behind the CME offset futures trade highlighted in the linked headline. However, the press release does not provide enough information around how the offset is calculated and this will be critical if the futures product is to develop into a fully functional and fungible market. The agriculture-based offsets sound good and, in many cases, they can be robust in terms of the genuine contribution to lowering CO2 in the atmosphere – for example, where a new tree is planted and there would not have been a new tree without the direct action. But there remains a great deal of debate around whether an initiative is more positive than its alternative. Would a tree have grown naturally if the project was not there? Is the carbon footprint of any wetlands mitigation initiative taken into account when looking at the CO2 offset – same with tree planting? How do you risk adjust the CO2 value of a tree or other agriculture offset – what if the forest burns?
There has been a lot of press over the last couple of months around carbon offsets – not least because of Mark Carney’s efforts to legitimize the idea. Mr. Carney’s focus is to create a robust trading platform for the buying and selling of legitimate offsets so that a carbon market can operate efficiently. He believes that without accurate and realistic carbon values, and the ability to buy and sell them, the capital markets around emission reduction will be inefficient and that less money will be attracted into the area. On this, he is probably correct, but in our view, the carbon offset markets have a long way to go.