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.
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.
Europe is likely to be a test case of how much inflation a country or region is willing to bear on its path to clean energy. Costs are rising in Europe, as LNG markets tighten and as carbon prices rise. The net result is increased power prices, with reports of unhappiness in many countries – this is a topic we have discussed at length in our dedicated ESG and climate work and was a focus of last week's report – linked here.
It is hard to ignore the number of headlines on hydrogen initiatives, today, highlighted in our ESG and climate report, as well as the acceleration in project announcements over the last several months. In the 80s in the UK, it was trendy to drive a VW Golf GTI – everyone had to have one – hydrogen has the same feel today – everyone has to have a project. The projects vary and fall into a handful of categories:
As we sift through the positioning for the upcoming COP26 meeting and the attention focusing report from the IPCC this week, it is a reasonable question to ask what this means for the plastic waste issue. If governments, lobbyists, and activists are likely to be more focused on climate change action over the next few years, which seems to be a reasonable conclusion, will there be the bandwidth for plastic waste? The plastic waste issue is less open to interpretation than the climate change issue and is a visible problem for all, but if governments need to prioritize where they spend their incremental dollar, and/or where they provide incentives of penalties, the climate is going to be pushed to the front of the line in our view. Plastics producers will have to deal with emissions, like any other industrial user of power and heat. The risk is that local governments, looking for revenue to support climate initiatives see taxing virgin plastic (or unrecycled plastic) as a way to both push plastic waste initiatives forward and raise revenue. Adding a plastic tax in the US to the superfund proposal in the infrastructure bill would be hitting the chemicals industry from two sides and would give bodies like the ACC far more grounds for pushback. For more on the IPCC analysis see our ESG & Climate Change report from this week.
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.
The IPCC (UN) report is all over every news outlet and its content and the ramifications of the analysis will be the core of our ESG and Climate piece tomorrow – in the Exhibit below we show a chart that was republished by the BBC which looks at projections around sea level increases. While the UN report has compelling academic and government backing and is certainly the most coordinated analysis on climate change, it is still littered with “most likely” and “more likely” comments, suggesting that the projections are still shrouded in uncertainty. There is a very good chart that shows “observed” climate change data over the last 50 years, and the ranges around the primary causality (human versus natural) conclusions are significant, suggesting that different models are telling very different stories, some less scary than others.
The primary reason for the flurry of carbon capture related headlines in the US over the last few weeks – and our analysis shows a significant step up – is because it looks like this will be the one technology/route to lower carbon emissions that will get a real boost from the infrastructure bill. There is bipartisan support for CCS because the fossil fuel industry sees it as a way to stay in the game and the unions believe that it will create jobs. This combination should garner enough votes to push it into the bill and get it passed, although the details around how CCS would be supported remain unclear. The infrastructure bill has very few real sources of income in it to offset the very high costs – something we will discuss on Sunday – and consequently giving a bigger tax break, through the 45Q program would create an even larger funding gap than we have today. The value/cost dynamic has to rise to get the activity that everyone is looking for and maybe that could be achieved by overlaying a carbon credit onto the program. Anyone exporting to Europe and concerned about the CBAM extending to natural gas, NGLs, chemicals, and polymers would likely consider CCS if they were eligible for 45Q and could also claim an offset on their exported products to neutralize the CBAM tax/fee.
As we discussed in yesterday’s ESG and Climate report, the SEC has some challenges ahead, not just because there are high hopes that it will start mandating a change in terms of disclosure accuracy and consistency, as well as fund definition, but also because, as yet, it does not have the mandate to do so. All eyes are on the regional regulators, in the US, Europe, and other countries to police what is the wild west of reporting. The E piece of ESG is the major challenge and it is where corporates and fund managers alike are dealing with issues and measures that are likely very different company by company within a sector, let alone between the sectors themselves – it is far more complex and harder to analyze than, for example, board diversity.