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.
In our ESG and Climate report yesterday we focused on sustainable aviation fuel, discussing a recent report from Shell and Deloitte, which shows some of the challenges with getting the aerospace industry to net zero. The report focused on the need for sustainable aviation fuel now, and in large volumes, as this is the only thread that the industry can pull on today – synthetic fuels (from CO2 and hydrogen will be uneconomic for decades, and neither electric powered or hydrogen-powered aircraft are going to be a solution before 2050). The bp, Delta, and Boeing linked headline is one of many that we expect to see as the need for near-term progress is urgent, given the scale of investment required. See yesterday’s report for more detail.
The CO2 emissions chart from the EIA should not be a surprise as the step-up in 2021 and 2022 is a recovery from the economic contraction and habit changes associated with COVID, and the projected increases in 2021 and 2022 are combined lower than the step down in 2020, suggesting that the trend is still negative. The problem is that the trend is not negative enough and as we have written about at length, it will not trend lower fast enough without all corrective opportunities at play – more renewable power, more conservation, and a lot of CCS. See our ESG and Climate work for more.
Our meetings over the last couple of weeks confirm several developments within the ESG investing world, all of which have been the focuses of our prior work. The first is a very significant step up in ESG oversight among most fund managers, with dedicated ESG teams at many companies scrutinizing sustainability reports and other releases, looking for red flags either from inconsistencies in reporting or from departures from the fund managers standards. Second, there remains a lack of real empirical analysis that allows for accurate comparisons between companies and this stems from the fuzzy reporting frameworks that we have today and the lack of clear and actionable guidance from regulators. As we have discussed several times, the huge inflows into ESG funds and the proportion of overall funds market that now has a “social impact” overlay could lead to real disruptions and some rapid valuation changes if and when the regulators provide tighter guidance on both corporate reporting and fund labeling.
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?
In our ESG and climate piece today we focus on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) and the likely very steep cost curve between the mega projects and those less fortunate. But as we discuss CCS, we should not forget that the World is still not convinced about CCS as part of the solution set for carbon abatement, as the headline linked discusses. The naysayers are focused on the lifeline that CCS offers to the fossil fuel industry, but always fail to offer an economic rationale for the quick elimination of fossil fuels and their replacement by renewables. Few of the proponents of CCS see it as an alternative to a long term path to alternative means of abatement, but all recognize that relying on renewable power investments will likely leave the World with a much larger CO2 footprint from 2030 to 2050 than what could be achievable with CCS – note that the 45Q incentive in the US has a finite lifespan as there is an expectation that eventually CCS will be unnecessary because of fossil fuel replacement. Chevron has not helped the CCS proponents with its missed targets in Australia as it adds fuel to the argument that CCS has not lived up to its potential. While the European carbon price trend has stalled in recent weeks – chart below – the trend remains distinct and it would be foolhardy to ignore the likelihood of prices rising to a level that makes CCS attractive – especially for the mega-projects.
The ACC call for 30% recycling of plastics by 2030 emphasizes chemical recycling, and in our ESG and Climate report yesterday we talked about an alternate path for plastics, one that focuses on reducing waste rather than increasing recycling. The product standardization and consumer and municipality waste collection and sorting rigor that would be needed to maximize mechanical recycling are significantly harder to achieve than the changes that would be needed to dramatically increase chemical recycling – i.e. it may be easier and less expensive to get to zero waste than it is to get to maximum recycling. Maybe we are thinking about this wrong, but to change tacks from here the industry would need to demonstrate that plastic waste can be removed, at scale, and then convince the plastic buyers that the path is better. We discuss the possibility in more depth in yesterday’s report.
The MLP headline linked covers a subject that we have addressed in prior work as it looks at the ESG related opportunities for pipelines, not just because pipelines are the lowest cost and lowest carbon footprint means of moving large scale existing gases and liquids around the US, but because of their future potential role moving CO2 and hydrogen. Because the opportunities to grow earnings in the cleaner fuels space will likely be a function of both opportunity (whether you already have some infrastructure that can be repurposed and whether you are in the right locations) and strategy (whether you seize the opportunities as they arise and think a little outside the box), how to play the opportunity from a stock perspective is more challenging as there will be winners and losers. We suggest one of two paths – either buy a basket of the pipeline names or focus on the idea of a positive sector re-rating, in which case you want to own the company with the highest equity leverage to any EV/EBITDA re-rating, which among the large and liquid names would be Energy Transfer – Exhibit below. For more on this see today's ESG report.
