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.
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.
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.
Our ESG and Climate Piece today focuses heavily on COP26, which begins this weekend, and has been the subject of many of this week's stories, as attending countries make their concerns and preferences known and as companies and lobbying groups try to be heard. The linked FT article talks about the minimum needs from COP26. We highlight this because we have been talking about the same things for months – the significant gap between what is pledged for 2030 and what is needed, and the need to attack emissions of methane and CO2 aggressively. The methane issue can likely best be achieved through legislation – especially as some of the leaks around the world may not belong to anyone, who could benefit from an incentive or be penalized for the leak. The CO2 emission issue will always be bet addressed through a pricing mechanism on carbon.
The Financial Times opinion piece linked in the bullet below and from which the chart is taken has used the IEA data that we have featured in recent work. The piece comprehensively walks through how the world is likely to come up short, and while it gives the measures that are needed and the money that likely needs to be spent, it is not an optimistic review of what will most likely occur. We remain firmly of the belief that much more progress could be made if there was a global agreement to make carbon very expensive – accompanied by an agreement on how to share the spoils of that expensive carbon such that the inflationary pressures are offset where they are most needed and that environmental injustices are minimized – this is idealistic are we recognize that.
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…”
The IEA chart in the exhibit below is another stark reminder of how far away stated policies for clean energy are from what will be needed, and the 2030 gap is the most significant in our view as there is little time to correct it. The IEA has presented several studies over the last year that presents a series of “straw men” examples around how the World and, most recently China, might meet their respective net-zero targets, and the chart below is intended to show how far adrift we are, comparing what is needed to what has been stated. As we have mentioned a couple of times, it would be unusual for companies and countries to have firm plans for 2050 that sum to what the IEA is looking for as there are new technologies under development and the incentive/penalty landscape is still uncoordinated and very unclear. The latter is also a problem looking forward to 2030, but closing the gap between the STEPs scenario and the NZE scenario by 2030 looks almost insurmountable today, without a much tougher and more globally coordinated regulatory landscape, which looks unlikely given some of the low expectations for COP26 specifically. Note that how under the Net-Zero scenario discussed by the IEA, fossil fuel would peak by 2025 and compare this with the EIA analysis that we discuss in today's daily report – there is a huge disconnect.
A couple of things worth highlighting in today's daily report – the first being Chevron’s move to join the net-zero club – focusing all eyes now on ExxonMobil in particular but also the rest of the US E&P crowd. Chevron will have some major challenges getting to net-zero and will likely face much of the same skepticism that bp, Shell, and TotalEnergies attracted in Europe initially and still face today. The Europeans have placed a lot of their bets on moving into renewable power – for the moment, Chevron is focused on moving to net zero in its own operations, which we read as biofuels and a lot of CCS. Given the acute shortage of international natural gas, it would make the most sense for the independent natural gas E&P companies and the LNG sellers to jump on the same boat. By promising low carbon natural gas and LNG, the industry is much more likely to gain support for the expansion that the world needs to counter some of the EIA assumptions around coal and petroleum product use from 2030 to 2050. Of course, it would be a whole lot easier for the US industry to do this if they had a value on carbon to work with! The chart below looks at one of the core clean-up issues, which is methane leakage. This is a subject we cover extensively in our ESG and Climate service linked here.
We expect to see a step up in chemical companies parading their green credentials – or plans for more green credentials, not just because COP26 is ahead but because it has now become a competitive issue. Dow’s view that it may be able to sell low carbon polyethylene in the US at a premium to regular polyethylene reflects a fairly rapidly changing narrative with customers, many of whom are also trying to accelerate their green credentials. For a couple of years, we saw packaging companies, for example, talk in broad terms about ambitions around recycled/renewable content, carbon footprints, etc. Now we are seeing the results of them trying to put their ambitions into practice and they are looking for tangible solutions from their suppliers to help them meet the pledges that they have made to consumers. For many of the packagers, the cost of the packaging is a very small component of the product cost and we would expect the packagers to look at more expensive packaging solutions if it gives them a better label. In the Air Products chart below, the company is using the La Porte start-up to remind us that it is already a huge player in hydrogen and hydrogen infrastructure. See our recent ESG and Climate Report.