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.
In our ESG and Climate report tomorrow we are focusing on the very wide range of carbon prices and the structures of the various emission reduction incentive schemes, with a focus on what it does to the competitive landscape within the impacted markets. For example, with the government subsidy being offered to BASF and Air Liquide for the CCS project in Antwerp, some level of competitive edge will be granted to the companies, because similar subsidies might not be available to others. Last week we discussed the very wide range of potential carbon abatement costs for companies in the same business, driven by technology and geography. If we add to that the potential for some projects to attract subsidies, while others do not, we change the landscape of the competitive playing field. Could we, for example, see BASF shutter production in Germany, where abatement costs are high, and move more manufacturing to Antwerp – something likely to be very unpopular with the German government and trade unions. This is more problematic in Europe because of the open trade policy. For Germany to give the same benefit that BASF has at Antwerp to chemical manufacturers in Germany could be prohibitively expensive given the much higher inland costs of CCS in Europe, assuming any permits would be issued. Alternatives to CCS, such as the electrification of industrial heating processes or the use of hydrogen as fuel might be equally expensive. We see some of the select European subsidies possibly causing discord between the member states.
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.
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.
The IEA has published another report looking at energy intensity progress – noting that the rate of improvement in energy use is likely not fast enough to do its part in achieving net-zero needs. It is a comprehensive report (linked here) and we have chosen a couple of charts as you can see in today's daily report. The more interesting conclusion within the analysis may be that the IEA expects plastic collection for recycling to rise from 17% to only 27% by 2035. While this is a global average and will differ by country and likely by material, the overall rate looks low (but probably reasonable) and too low to allow packagers to meet recycle content goals, many of which are either 2025 or 2030 targets. We discuss some of the evolving packaging challenges in our ESG and Climate report today.
We highlight more from the IEA on the importance of EVs versus other vehicles to bring down “well to wheel” carbon footprints and the second (not unexpected) “kick in the pants” chart that shows the World woefully short in terms of its projected EV adoption rate. There are – probably expensive – hurdles to reaching the IEA net-zero goals with respect to EVs. The first is going to be the need to pay or tax consumers enough for them to give up a perfectly good ICE vehicle long before the end of its natural life.
In our dedicated ESG and climate piece tomorrow we will focus on the progress and lack of progress at COP26 and discuss some of the likely consequences (intended and unintended) for the energy and materials industries. One of the subjects we touched on in the energy section of today's daily report, is how to craft a methane emission initiative that does not result in a decline in natural gas production before we see a needed recovery as the last thing the world needs now is more limited natural gas availability. Methane emission reduction looks like it is one subject on which there appears to be broad global agreement.
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.
The Avient chart around where brand owners sit with recycled content versus 2025 goals is quite scary. There are not enough initiatives collectively to address the needs, as the demand extends beyond the 13 brand owners listed. In our ESG and climate report yesterday we talked about the challenges with recycled PET and the complicating factor around recycled material heading into different applications, and consequently not being available to bottlers. We also have the issue of PET bottle pre-form capacity being overweight in Asia versus PET bottle demand and waste – setting up an imbalance between where the waste is and where the recycled material is needed. The gaps in the Avient chart and the slow and challenging recycling progress lead to a couple of conclusions. The first is that recycled material is likely going to rise in value versus virgin material – simply because of competition and the PR, IR, Social cost of not meeting targets for many brand owners. The second conclusion is that the renewably sourced polymer producers have a huge potential opportunity to step in and fill the gap. The challenge will be the ability to have enough capacity up and running to meet demand in 2025.
We have spent a lot of time in our ESG and Climate work talking about the huge impending challenge of producing enough sustainable aviation fuel to meet airlines desired needs for 2030 and beyond and we highlighted a Ryanair release yesterday that suggested that the company would struggle to meet its 12.5% goal by 2030. The Honeywell schematic in the exhibit below is one of many different processes that are being considered to meet both the demand for sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel and gasoline demand. With gasoline more likely to be replaced with increased numbers of EVs over time, we believe that the sustainable fuel focus will switch to aviation as the main priority, and we will need every technology that we can get to meet the volume needs. Waste oil and vegetable oil, with carbon capture around the refining process, is one route, fermentation-based processes are another, and waste to oil is a third, although we remain skeptical about the reliability and economics around a waste gasification-based approach.