The Green Plains Institute analysis below draws heavily on the EPA emissions data by facility, but correctly, in our view, identifies where CCS makes the most sense in the US. We still struggle with the pipeline distances associated with some of these ideas as CO2 disposal is still a cost for emitters and in any attempt to reduce costs, pipeline distances will be key. We have discussed the opportunity recently for massive blue hydrogen investment (including CCS) to replace industrial heating fuel and this would apply in all of the regions below. Note our conclusions in today’s ESG and Climate report that we expect renewable power installation goals to fall short – requiring more use of natural gas (for power generation or hydrogen production) with accompanying CCS.
The carbon credit schematic below helps understand the mechanics, but the diagram does not sufficiently emphasize the critical importance of the “Verification and Validation” step. This is a great example of a mechanism that should work logically, but if the input is wrong the output will be also. Potential buyers and sellers of carbon credits understand the process well, but they are more concerned about what goes in the front end as the value of the credit will be very dependent on the quality. Today the only “sure thing” carbon offset is direct air capture, as all of the agriculture-based offsets need much tighter definitions. See research - Carbon Prices – Inequitable and Uncertain – Not What We Need
In a media interview earlier this week (more details to follow) we were involved in a discussion about inflation and specifically energy. The discussion covered much more than this, but the chart below is perhaps one of the easier ways of showing where our concern lies, and it ties directly to the behavioral patterns that are emerging concerning climate change and ESG focused investing. As noted in the title of the chart, the likelihood that the linear path from here to net-zero will work is very low, given that we would need global government coordination now, and we are far from it. The other scenarios are much more likely, at least in the early years, and they call for an increase in emissions, which implies growing demand for fossil fuels and other materials that have a high emissions footprint. If you are an oil or gas producer and you look at the chart you could quickly conclude that while your products are in demand today and likely to be in growing demand for several years, the longer-term outlook is very unclear. This might slow down your investment plans, or at least make you think twice about the shorter lead-time projects – such as on-shore and shale-based. However, it could kill any longer-term offshore/deepwater projects that take many years to bring on stream. Today we see energy investment hesitancy everywhere (see our Chemical Blog), but at the same time, we do not see the global coordination to drive a faster energy transition, assuming we had the materials and the investment dollars to move any faster. The risk that we run out of produced fossil fuels from time to time over the next 3-5 years is very high.
The Schlumberger net-zero goals, as discussed in a couple of articles in today's daily and the presentation linked, set some aggressive but bold ambitions, especially as they are looking to solve problems that they share with their customers, methane leakage from oil and gas wells, and minimizing flaring. Schlumberger is a little dependent on collaboration from its customers here as the technology solutions are likely to be more expensive than current options and the oil and gas producers will need to pay up.