The carbon capture plans lacking a place to put the CO2, suggested in the two connected stories linked here (link 1, link 2), echo something that we have been highlighting for a while. There have been several press releases with respect to CCS – partnerships – plans to accompany new investments – gathering schemes for the ethanol industry, etc. but none have any specificity around where they will put the CO2. The Houston team, discussed in a recent report is talking about offshore Texas, and given both ExxonMobil and Chevron in the partnership, we do not doubt that there is a plan, but in general, the permit activity at the EPA is, we understand, quite limited today. To apply for a class 6 permit, applicants need to have a detailed analysis of the sub-surface that they plan to target, and once you have identified a location, there are likely at least 18 months of work to get into shape to submit the permit. Some of the oil majors may be able to move faster on acreage that they already have seismic models for, but it is a long process – we wrote about the need for 45Q to change in both value and duration in our recent ESG and Climate Piece.
Overnight there has been a very good IEA report on how China could get to net-zero by 2060, and further news of more industries hit by power cuts because of power shortages, some of which are apparently due to tighter emissions standards. These are both important and far-reaching topics and will require some analysis to provide the kind of insight that we believe is necessary, and accordingly, we will push these to next week’s report (all input welcome). In the meantime, we have included a couple of charts that show the way up and the IEA view of the way down. The power outages are interesting as while they may cause some manufacturing cutbacks and we have seen recent news to that effect, China has overbuilt in the last couple of years relative to domestic demand growth, and with port and shipping congestion the country has surpluses of many products sitting around at very low values. The power moves may help correct some of these imbalances and we are already seeing some chemical prices bounce off recent lows because of production cutbacks. We discussed the acetic acid chain in one of our dailies last week – linked here.
Our concern with the very encouraging charts below is that it is easy to join the group today, as there is no requirement to have a granular plan as to how you achieve net-zero. Many of the companies on the list may have the best intentions, but to get to their targets many need technology advances that are at best in laboratories today, and many need pricing structures – either incentives or penalties that make the right path forward more obvious. A lot of this does not exist today and the timeline to getting some of it done is being extended by political log-jams and differences of opinions. As time passes, the 100 or so companies that have signed the pledge are going to have to, at a minimum, explain what they are going to do and shortly thereafter, start committing capital.
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.
It is worth a short explanation of what is going on with European CO2, given the mixed signals of shortages in headlines today and then the slight weakness in pricing shown in the image below. These are two very different markets, with the food, beverage, medical and nuclear industries looking for pure streams of CO2 rather than the contaminated streams that make up the bulk of emissions. Historically, the food and beverage industry looked to fermentation – so alcohol production – as its source of a pure CO2 stream, but as demand grew, the next best place became ammonia production, which also has a pure CO2 stream as a by-product. Most ammonia is further converted into urea, which is a consumer of CO2 and there is not enough CO2 produced in a natural gas-based ammonia plant to convert all of the ammonia to urea. You sometimes see urea facilities also selling ammonia, but more frequently they take the carbon monoxide by-product of the syngas reaction and convert that to CO2. The result is enough CO2 to convert all of the ammonia to Urea and surplus CO2 to sell. Because of this more dominant supply of food and beverage grade CO2, and shutdowns caused in this case by runaway natural gas prices, have an immediate impact on the industries that rely on the CO2.
News that ExxonMobil has support for its large CCS hub in Houston should not be a surprise. According to the EPA data, for 2019, Harris and Galveston counties combined have more than 50 million tons of CO2 emissions and there are another 20 million tons in Brazoria county, which is close enough to be included. The devil will be in the details as the cost of building a high-pressure pipe network will be high, as will drilling wells with sufficient capacity offshore. We believe that this hub, or cluster (as they are called in Europe), approach will help drive CCS costs down, but we are concerned by the competitive disadvantage that this might cause for those without access to a hub or cluster – see our ESG report - Cluster F***ed: The Dangerous Scale Component of CCS – for more.
The tax credits suggested for 45Q in the budget reconciliation plan – see Exhibit below – would pay for roughly 18 million tons of CO2 sequestered or used in EOR over the life of the budget, assuming a credit value of $50 per ton of carbon. While this may seem huge in the context of the current levels of CCS in the US, the country had around 2.5 billion tons of emissions in 2019 that could be addressed with CCS (power and industrials), and if we assume 10% of that needs to be dealt with through CCS, the 45Q provisions in the budget reconciliation would cover less than 8% of the volume for one year and the percentage will be even lower if the “CATCH” act is successful in driving the 45Q value to $85 per ton of CO2. So the numbers are either inadequate, or the government is assuming that the levels of CCS in the US will be much lower than the potential – note that the ExxonMobil proposal for a hub in and around Texas talked about the maximum size for the one project being as much as 100 million tons per annum which should equate to $5 billion of tax credits – per annum. See our ESG & Climate report for much more on carbon markets today.
The most notable news from the Iceland CO2 direct air capture (DAC) project, illustrated in the Exhibit below, is not that it is working and how energy efficient it is, but that the CO2 capture costs are extremely high and yet all of the offsets are sold. One report talks about the costs per credit approximating $1000 per ton of CO2, which is likely accurate given that the facility is relatively small scale, at 4 thousand metric tons per year. The same report also states that the credits are almost sold out for the 12 years that they are being offered. We believe that this is indicative of the marginal demand for uncontestable carbon offsets, and this is a topic we have covered at length in our ESG and climate work. Shell, bp, and others are selling what they claim to be carbon neutral hydrocarbons around the world and are buying offsets to do so, but they are coming under quite a lot of “greenwashing” fire because of the less tangible/auditable nature of the credits they are buying – often related to agricultural or specific tree conservation/planting initiatives that are questioned because of the validity of the capture claim or the vulnerability of the credit to weather, fires, and forest maintenance years in the future.
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.
Last week, and in our dedicated ESG and climate report this week, we talked about the challenges of shipping hydrogen, and the linked bp project for Western Australia will have the same problem to solve – choosing ammonia according to the announcement over the very inefficient toluene/cyclohexane option we discussed last week. The appeal of Western Australia is the unpopulated available land that has little alternative use and sees abundant sunshine. The bp project assumes that the facility can buy attractively priced renewable power from third parties, but the company must have a specific power project in mind for the bulk of the electricity needed. The stumbling block here will likely be when the power project(s) bid out the solar module contract, find out that the suppliers are sold out and are asking higher prices to cover reinvestment and higher material prices, and then have to go back to bp with a much higher than expected cost of power. The advantage of solar and wind projects is that inflation only impacts upfront capital costs, which can be amortized over the life of the project – feedstocks are free! That said, most of the announced projects have declining capital costs per megawatt in their planning assumptions today.