As we have mentioned before, we see a couple of major challenges with the CO2 pipelines proposed for the mid-West, one of which is summarized in the Exhibit below. The first issue is pipeline right-of-ways, as there are already activists determined to oppose the pipelines, and opposition to pipelines has been a core them of the last 10 years. The second issue is cost. Carbon abatement is a cost for all looking for solutions and even where incentives exist, such as the 45Q program or the LCFS fuels program, the challenge will still be creating a path with the lowest. Compression and pumping costs are high for CO2, especially if the pipeline wants a pressure that will allow for direct injection into a series of wells. Lower pressure transportation by pipe is inefficient and raises the capital cost of the pipeline – so it becomes a trade-off – CAPEX vs OPEX. $4.5 billion of investment – as suggested by Summit – is $375 per annual ton of carbon dioxide sequestered - $37per ton assuming 10-year straight-line payback – twice that if you want a 10% return. This is before a dollar of OPEX and pipeline costs could easily exceed another $30+ per ton, with separation and purification of the CO2 stream also not free. Unless the ethanol producers are paying Summit and Navigator to take the CO2, the math becomes very challenging. See today's daily report and our weekly ESG and Climate report for more.
The Monolith announcement is not that surprising, as the auto industry is very focused on its carbon footprint and its suppliers, like Goodyear, are under pressure to look for more sustainable solutions. While Monolith uses natural gas as a feed, it’s carbon black is produced with very limited Scope 1 emissions, unlike the traditional route, used by the incumbents. It is not clear what the production economics are for Monolith because the co-product value of hydrogen could vary greatly depending on local needs, but the emergence of a competitor who sees carbon black potentially as a by-product is not likely to be good news for the traditional makers. A by-product that is more environmentally friendly is even more of a threat. Complicating the picture further could be the arrival of larger volume production from Origin Materials, which has a renewable based carbon black like material, which may also be seen as a by-product.
In our ESG and Climate piece yesterday we briefly discussed the mid-west carbon capture projects, questioning their economic viability. Two of the most expensive components of any CCS project are pipelines and compression costs and we cannot see how a long network of pipe in the mid-west to pick up what are essentially small volumes can work economically. These projects are reliant on very high LCFS-like credits, and as we showed in last week’s report, LCFS credits have fallen this year and could fall further. The pipeline right of way issue is another major hurdle and we have seen growing resistance to pipelines of any sort over the last few years. Those who oppose CCS in principle could cripple these mid-west plans simply by co-opting enough land-owners on the path of the proposed pipelines and refusing access. We are supporters of CCS, but have done substantial work on economics and show that the process only begins to make economic sense if the sequestration is close to the emissions. Relying on possible artificially high carbon prices to justify the projects will only lead to pain, assuming the pipeline right of ways can be obtained.
We note the IEA work on CCUS in several charts below and this is good timing relative to our ESG and climate report this week – which focused on carbon pricing, something we believe is necessary to promote more real activity in CCUS. In the Exhibit below, it is important to note how many projects are in “development” rather than operational or under construction. It is also worth noting that the number of projects under construction has not grown since 2019. One of the reasons for this is that increased activity at the planning stage is then followed by a delay associated with permitting, which depending on the region can take 2 plus years. The other constraint is uncertainty, with many of the projects under consideration waiting for something to change, either local values of CO2 or mandates or direct government support. For example, the large project planned for Houston and championed by several oil, power, and chemical companies is unlikely to move forward without a higher tax credit for CO2 sequestration or without some other incentive. The mid-West projects targeting the ethanol industry will also need permits, not just for the wells but also for the many hundreds of miles of proposed pipelines.
We are going to focus our Sunday Thematic this week (will be found here) on a couple of related topics: alternative technologies that only make sense when prices are high, and whether this has changed with ESG and climate pressure, and ESG solution fixation – “methanol is the only solution” – see infographic below – or it’s hydrogen or ammonia or batteries. Sticking with the theme that seems to have hit a chord with COP26 attendees and something that we discussed in a report around carbon capture several months ago – we cannot let a foolhardy quest for “perfect” get in the way of more economic “good enough” solutions. The emission issues are generally site and process specific and different solutions will be more practical and affordable for different processes and in different geographies – there is no “one size fits all” solution.
The hydrogen council chart below drags us away from 2050 and back to the more concerning near-term goals of 2030. The chart shows a significant gap in the current planned spend for hydrogen by region and the spending required to move far enough towards 2050 targets. This chart makes assumptions about the share of energy transition that will be met by hydrogen and given that it is the industry producing the chart, it is probably on the high side, but it is inclusive of both blue and green hydrogen. We have serious concerns about these totals being reached in general, but we see the target as completely unreachable without significant blue hydrogen (because of renewable power and electrolyzer capacity limits and we cannot rely on Canada to do all of the “heavy lifting” for blue hydrogen - see company section in today's daily report. The Biden administration may make more progress on emissions if the next order of business was just on CCUS rather than an omnibus bill that included CCUS but which could get held up in negotiations for months if it even gets passed.
We want to focus today on the headlines around the possible increase in the 45Q CCS credit in the US and discuss the false logic of those that are objecting to it. There is no scenario where the US can move to a lower emissions power and transport profile while avoiding runaway inflation and social disorder without the continued use of fossil fuel-based power and transportation fuels for decades. The reliance on these fuels should and will decline over the years, but it is unreasonable to expect a transition that causes it to stop overnight. In the meantime, CCS is a mechanism that would allow fossil fuels to play a part with a much lower emissions footprint, and given that the CO2 impact on global warming is cumulative, if we can capture and store several billion tons of CO2 underground over that transition period it should be a good thing. Members of the Sierra Club and others would do well to look at the energy inflation problems in Europe and the move this week to put natural gas and nuclear back in the energy transition mix (too late in our view) because the move to renewables cannot keep pace with demand, which will grow faster as more EVs hit the road. The proposed 45Q credit is shown in the chart below vs. the current credit, the LCFS credit, and estimates of CCS costs.
It is interesting to contrast Linde and LyondellBasell with Air Products and Dow. Air Products and Dow have transitioned away from the more generic messaging around broad objectives, and while they still have them, have started talking about concrete plans and spending aimed at lowering carbon emissions. Dow has a project on the books that will lower the emissions of existing capacity while Air Products is talking about greenfield low carbon investments at this point. Many of the commentators and climate activists are calling for concrete plans as opposed to broad objectives and we suspect that most of the narrative will move that way across energy and materials.
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.
If you look back at our ESG and Climate piece this week (EIA View Suggests Natural Gas & CCS Critical To Net-Zero Goals), you will note that we focused on the recent EIA global energy outlook, and another chart from this outlook is shown below. In the ESG report, we talked about the global need to support increased “clean” natural gas use to offset as much of the coal predictions in the chart as possible and to drive additional hydrogen production to offset some of the petroleum product demand that the EIA still expects to be sued as a transport fuel in 2050. We also called for the broad and warm embrace of CCS so that some of the fossil fuel that the EIA is predicting – especially all of the fuel used for power in the exhibit below. Yesterday Air Products announced not only a large blue hydrogen complex for Louisiana but also the CCS to support it and made a very compelling argument in its presentation for the need for substantial volumes of blue hydrogen – something we fully agree with. We covered the subject in detail in yesterday’s daily. “Blue Is The Color, Hydrogen Is The Game…”