When we highlighted the Ag equipment names as interesting in our daily report earlier in the week, we had not realized that a Deere earnings announcement was imminent. The high farm profitability in the US is giving farmers some freedom with spending at a time when the equipment makers are hitting the market with some exciting new products – especially autonomous machinery – which can save on labor costs. The ESG angle here is further advances in precision agriculture, which can allow for more output for fewer inputs. There is also a very strong push towards low-till and no-till farming (to lower net CO2 emissions or increase CO2 capture) and this is an opportunity for the equipment makers to sell new equipment.
There should be little doubt that the US has a significant opportunity to decarbonize through CCS and if the US has a carbon value close to the level in Europe today we would be seeing investments announced almost weekly. While permitting would cause some significant lead time between announcement and construction/operation, the other uncertainty might be how best to capture the CO2. In its earnings release yesterday, CF talked about purifying CO2 streams at its two large Urea plants on the Gulf Coast, such that the CO2 would be ready to sequester, but the Urea process creates a relatively concentrated stream of CO2 and that makes separation much easier. For others, the better route might be hydrogen investments – driven by the relative ease of capturing the CO2, especially if it is part of the process design. If this route is more economic, the net new investment would be substantial, not just for the SMR, ATR, or fuel cell hydrogen generators, but also for the infrastructure and oxygen capacity for any ATR investment. This seems like a no-brainer bi-partisan opportunity for the US as there is broad support for CCS but incentives need to be higher. For more on this topic see our ESG and Climate research.
One piece of big news early this week was ExxonMobil’s announcement that it is developing plans that will drive net-zero emissions by 2050 and the company shared a detailed overview. We have picked some charts from the report, some of which can help us draw conclusions for ExxonMobil, but others are more general. The company is banking on a lot of emission reduction and CCS to get to the 2030 target and a large part of the goal is likely to come from the plans for the Permian and the previously stated net-zero target that the company has for 2030 – detail on how this will be achieved is shown in the Exhibit below, see more in today's ESG report.
In yesterday's ESG and Climate report, we looked at an extreme example of how the right support for clean fossil fuel use through a long period of energy transition, could create economic growth, support job growth, and not require subsidies – coal gasification to produce low-cost hydrogen. With the opposition to the “Build Back Better” bill, there is a clear opportunity for the fossil fuel industry to step up and suggest compromises, and we are seeing increasing interest in large scale CCS, despite its cost, in part because it is a path that will allow natural gas and other fossil fuels to meet increasing demand in a way that has a much lower carbon footprint, and in part, because it will still be cheaper than some of the heavily subsidized ideas to try and accelerate investments in renewable power that will inevitably fall foul of equipment and material shortages – something we have written about at length in past research – linked here. The EIA has already noted that coal use in 2021 has risen globally and it is likely that it will rise again, given the increasing demand for electric power and the lack of supply elasticity in the renewable power and natural gas-based systems – coal is a large part of the swing capacity these days. Many of the CCS projects proposed for the US are not much more than proposals today, but we are seeing some initial investment to prove that subsurface storage opportunities are feasible.
International natural gas prices are hitting new highs this week, both on an absolute basis and relative to the US - see both charts below. At the same time, we see new contracts being signed for US LNG to move to China and Europe, but mainly China. This is happening despite significant renewable power investments globally in 2021 and it would appear that many have underestimated energy demand growth in projections and policy. The other net effect of the supply/demand imbalance this winter and possibly through 2022 will be increased coal use in Europe and the US, with local governments unable to meet near-term climate goals, especially in Europe, but also in parts of Asia and, at the same time keep the people warm and the lights on. In our ESG and Climate piece tomorrow we will focus on one highly unpopular but likely very practical opportunity for coal as part of a planned energy transition program, and it is likely that, while climate goals may not need to change, some socially unpopular decisions around the use of fossil fuels will be needed to prevent even more socially unpopular inflation or absolute shortages.
When China announced its 2060 net-zero goals we dedicated one of our ESG and Climate pieces to the topic - China: A Challenge With 2060 Goal But Also A Possible Edge - concluding that this would likely drive considerable competitive advantage for China assuming that others would bear the costs of new technology learning curves and China would get the solutions more cheaply. In interim China would have lower costs of manufacturing because of the delayed net-zero implementation. With the Biden administration now pushing for a coordinated 2050 commitment for the US, some of the burdens of early costs that China could benefit from also fall on the US. In one of the headlines (from today's report), there is criticism of the European CBAM and questions around whether it could work. The reality is that it, or something like it, has to work, otherwise asymmetric climate policies will create pockets of competitive advantage - potentially very damaging to those spending more.
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.
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.
The gaps in the exhibit below are not surprising as 2050 is a long way away and we would not expect all of the needed capacity to be announced or pledged yet, especially as many companies are still weighing alternatives. For example, as an ethylene producer, you have 5 paths – hydrogen as a furnace fuel – electric power as a heating medium – stick with what you have and use CCS – find an alternative route to make the polymers – make alternative polymers.