Connect with us

Published

on

Exxon Mobil inks first carbon capture deal

Could it be that Big Oil’s next big thing got a big assist from Joe Biden?

Maybe, if carbon capture and storage is indeed as big a deal as ExxonMobil’s first-of-its-kind deal to extract, transport and store carbon from other companies’ factories implies.

The deal, announced last month, calls for ExxonMobil to capture carbon emitted by CF Industries‘ ammonia factory in Donaldsonville, La., and transport it to underground storage using pipelines owned by Enlink Midstream. Set to start up in 2025, the deal is meant to herald a new stage in dealing with carbon produced by manufacturers, and is the latest step in ExxonMobil’s often-tense dialogue with investors who want oil companies to slash emissions.

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in August, may determine whether deals like Exxon’s become a trend. The law expands tax credits for capturing carbon from industrial uses in a bid to offset the high up-front costs of plans to capture carbon from places like CF’s plant, as other tax credits in the law lower costs of renewable power and electric cars. 

The Inflation Reduction Act and Big Oil

The law may help oil companies like ExxonMobil build profitable businesses to replace some of the revenue and profit they’ll lose as EVs proliferate. Though the company isn’t sharing financial projections, it has committed to investing $15 billion in CCS by 2027 and ExxonMobil Low-Carbon Solutions president Dan Ammann says it may invest more.

“We see a big business opportunity here,” Ammann told CNBC’s David Faber. “We’re seeing interest from companies across a whole range of industries, a whole range of sectors, a whole range of geographies.”

The deal calls for ExxonMobil to capture and remove 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide yearly from CF’s factory, equivalent to replacing 700,000 gasoline-powered vehicles with electric versions. 

Each company involved is pursuing its own version of the low-carbon industrial economy. CF wants to produce more carbon-free blue ammonia, a process that often involves extracting ammonia’s components from carbon-laden fossil fuels. Enlink hopes to become a kind of railroad for captured CO2 emissions, calling itself the would-be “CO2 transportation provider of choice” for an industrial corridor laden with refineries and chemical plants. 

An industrial facility on the Houston Ship Channel where Exxon Mobil is proposing a carbon capture and sequestration network. Between this industry-wide plan and its first deal for another company’s CCS needs, ExxonMobil is hoping that its low-carbon business quickly scales to a legitimate source of revenue and profit.

CNBC

Exxon itself wants to develop carbon capture as a new business, Amman said, pointing to a “very big backlog of similar projects,” part of the company’s pledge to remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as Exxon itself emits by 2050.  

“We want oil companies to be active participants in carbon reduction,” said Julio Friedmann, a deputy assistant energy secretary under President Obama and chief scientist at Carbon Direct in New York. “It’s my expectation that this can become a flagship project.”

The key to the sudden flurry of activity is the Inflation Reduction Act.

“It’s a really good example of the intersection of good policy coming together with business and the innovation that can happen on the business side to tackle the big problem of emissions and the big problem of climate change,” Ammann said. “The interest we are seeing, the backlog, are all confirming this is starting to move and starting to move quickly.”

The law increased an existing tax credit for carbon capture to $85 a ton from $45, Goldman said, which will save the Exxon/CF/Enlink project as much as $80 million a year. Credits for captured carbon used underground to enhance production of more fossil fuels are lower, at $60 per ton.

“Carbon capture is a big boys’ game,” said Peter McNally, global sector lead for industrial, materials and energy research at consulting firm Third Bridge. “These are billion-dollar projects. It’s big companies capturing large amounts of carbon. And big oil and gas companies are where the expertise is.” 

Goldman Sachs, and environmentalists, are skeptical

A Goldman Sachs team led by analyst Brian Singer called the law “transformative” for climate reduction technologies including battery storage and clean hydrogen. But its analysis is less bullish when it comes to the impact on carbon capture projects like Exxon’s, with Singer expecting more modest gains as the law accelerates development in longer-term projects. To speed up investment more, companies must build CCS systems at greater scale and invent more efficient carbon-extraction chemistry, the Goldman team said.

Industrial uses are the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., according to the EPA. That’s narrowly behind both electricity production and transportation. Emissions reduction in industrial uses is considered more expensive and difficult than in either power generation or car and truck transport. Industry is the focus for CCS because utilities and vehicle makers are looking first to other technologies to cut emissions.

Almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity last year came from renewable sources that replace coal and natural gas and another 19 percent came from carbon-free nuclear power, according to government data. Renewables’ share is rising rapidly in 2022, according to interim Energy Department reports, and the IRA also expands tax credits for wind and solar power. Most airlines plan to reduce their carbon footprint by switching to biofuels over the next decade.

More oil and chemical companies seem likely to get on the carbon capture bandwagon first. In May, British oil giant BP and petrochemical maker Linde announced a plan to capture 15 million tons of carbon annually at Linde’s plants in Greater Houston. Linde wants to expand its sales of low-carbon hydrogen, which is usually made by mixing natural gas with steam and a chemical catalyst. In March, Oxy announced a deal with a unit of timber producer Weyerhauser. Oxy won the rights to store carbon underneath 30,000 acres of Weyerhauser’s forest land, even as it continues to grow trees on the surface, with both companies prepared to expand to other sites over time.

Still, environmentalists remain skeptical of CCS.

Tax credits may cut the cost of CCS to companies, but taxpayers still foot the bill for what remains a “boondoggle,” said Carroll Muffett, CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law in Washington. The biggest part of industrial emissions comes from the electricity that factories use, and factory owners should reduce that part of their carbon footprint with renewable power as a top priority, he said.

“It makes no economic sense at the highest levels, and the IRA doesn’t change that,” Muffett said. “It just changes who takes the risk.” 

Friedman countered by saying economies of scale and technical innovations will trim costs, and that CCS can reduce carbon emissions by as much as 10 percent over time.

“It’s a rather robust number,” Friedmann said. “And it’s about things you can’t easily address any other way.” 

Continue Reading

Environment

How BP became a potential takeover target

Published

on

By

How BP became a potential takeover target

The logo of British oil major BP.

Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

For weeks, market tongues have been wagging about a potential merger between Britain’s oil giants — until, ending weeks of speculation, Shell on Thursday denied reports that it’s in talks to acquire BP.

But how did we get to the point that BP, a U.K. oil exploration company that was founded in 1909 under the name Anglo-Persian Oil Company, is now seen as a possible takeover target for its long time rival?

The reset

Back in 2020, under the guidance of then newly appointed CEO Bernard Looney, BP announced it would embark on a strategy to remake itself as a “a net-zero company by 2050 or sooner,” while ramping up its investment in renewable energy projects. The energy giant committed to “performing while transforming” as it laid out this new strategy.

At the time, Looney acknowledged that the shift would be a challenge but argued that it was “also a tremendous opportunity”.

Initial burst

Looney launched the strategy just as the Covid-19 pandemic was making its way across the world, triggering a demand shock and cratering crude prices. The energy giant posted its first full-year loss in a decade, but the company proceeded with its revamp, posting an annual profit in 2021 of $7.6 billion — before more than tripling to $27.65 billion in 2022, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent oil prices surging.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

BP share price.

Looney lauded the results, telling CNBC the firm was now leaning into its strategy.

“We’re announcing up to $8 billion more investment into the energy transition this decade and up to $8 billion more into oil and gas in support of energy security and energy affordability this decade,” he said.

This increased investment into the company’s energy transition was reinforced by forecasts, published in the 2023 edition of BP’s Energy Outlook, that the share of fossil fuels in primary energy would fall from around 80% in 2019 to as low as 20% in 2050.

Looney departs

BP was left reeling when Bernard Looney abruptly announced his resignation in September 2023 after less than four years into the job, with the company revealing he had not been “fully transparent in his previous disclosures” about relationships in the workplace prior to becoming CEO.

Then Chief Financial Officer Murray Auchincloss stepped in as interim CEO before being appointed on a permanent basis in January 2024.

But the man who had driven the vision of BP as a renewable energy giant was now out of the building. 

Speculation mounts

Declining annual profits in both 2023 and 2024, along with Looney’s departure and a continued underperformance in BP’s shares compared to its peers, raised fresh questions about the oil major’s strategy and its future as a standalone company. Aside from Shell, Chevron and Exxon Mobil have also been touted as potential suitors for BP, while the Emirates’ Adnoc has reportedly eyed some of its gas assets.

Activist investor Elliott reportedly built up a stake in the oil major in February, just before Auchincloss revealed BP’s strategic reset that set out to ramp up investment in oil and gas and reduce the focus on renewables. Investors have yet to be impressed, with shares down 15% since that time.

Speaking to CNBC in April, Auchincloss brushed off concerns that the company was becoming a takeover target, saying “we’re a strong, independent company. His peer, Shell CEO Wael Sawan, meanwhile told CNBC in June that “we have a very high bar” for M&A opportunities, but argued that the company continues to favor buying back its own shares.

What’s next

Shell’s robust rejection of these reports appears to have, for now, thrown cold water on a potential takeover bid for BP. Morningstar Senior Equity Analyst Allen Good has questioned the merits of a Shell deal for BP at this point, telling CNBC that “unless the valuation is super attractive” then it would probably not be worth the headache for executives.

Continue Reading

Environment

Volvo delivers 5,000th electric semi with little fanfare, sending a BIG message

Published

on

By

Volvo delivers 5,000th electric semi with little fanfare, sending a BIG message

With the Tesla Semi making headlines consistently since its first public appearance waaay back back in 2017, you might think they were some kind of market leaders. Meanwhile, Volvo Trucks has quietly delivered its 5,000th electric semi truck … and they’re just getting started.

Volvo delivered its first all electric semi truck 2019. Since then, Volvo customers in more than 50 countries around the world have logged more than 100 million miles (170 million km – and almost half of that in the last 14 months as the size of its deployed fleet grows) in real-world commercial operations, eliminating massive amounts of CO2 and NOx emissions and reducing traffic noise. All the while, they’re making life a little cleaner and quieter for the people who live and work near the roads they travel.

They’re massive achievements, and Volvo Truck executives are very rightly proud of themselves for making them happen.

“It’s rewarding to see that transport companies continue to embrace the benefits with electric trucks in a wide range of transport segments,” offers Roger Alm, President Volvo Trucks. “Volvo’s battery-electric trucks are available here and now, providing our customers and transport buyers with a more sustainable alternative that makes business sense, and many of our customers are coming back to us to grow their electric fleets.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

King of the electric road


Volvo Trucks electric
VNR Electric; via Volvo Trucks.

They say comparison is the thief of joy. That’s especially true if you suck and you compare yourself to people who are awesome – and since Elon sucks like it’s his job, I’m thieving a ton of joy by comparing the 140-odd number of Tesla Semi trucks out there to Volvo’s much larger, less-sucky 5,000-plus number.

With a head start like that, more than half a decade of production delays, and a “dramatic” price increase to something like $420,000 each, it seems like it would be tough for Tesla to catch up (even if they do manage to begin series production in 2026).

That seems especially true in Europe, where Volvo Trucks has established itself as the leader in the heavy electric truck segment for the last five consecutive years with a 47% market share – though the story is a bit different the US and Canada, however, where Volvo’s share of the electric truck segment was “just” 40% in 2024.

Volvo Trucks electric lineup

That said, Tesla has beaten legacy brands with massive, seemingly insurmountable leads before – but the good news is that, when it comes to EVs, whoever wins, we kind of all win, you know? Even Elon! That’s my take, anyway. Head down to the comments and let me know yours.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Volvo Trucks.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

An energy star inside U.S. homes is under attack from Trump, with the cost to homeowners uncertain

Published

on

By

An energy star inside U.S. homes is under attack from Trump, with the cost to homeowners uncertain

Donald Trump, as both a citizen and president, has railed against modern dishwashers, washing machines, light bulbs, showerheads and toilets, claiming that onerous government regulations render them less effective and more expensive.

Since returning to the White House in January, he’s turned his ire into an edict.

On April 9, Trump issued an executive order directing certain federal agencies “to incorporate a sunset provision” into a laundry list of regulations governing energy production, including those covering appliances. A month later, he issued a memorandum, entitled “Rescission of Useless Water Pressure Standards.”

Following that, on May 12, the Department of Energy announced that it was preparing to eliminate or modify 47 federal regulations “that are driving up costs and lowering quality of life for the American people.”

Many of the rules are covered in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), a decades-old law that mandates energy-efficiency and water-conservation standards for home appliances and plumbing fixtures.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency said it is planning to eliminate the Energy Star program, a popular voluntary initiative that manufacturers employ to rank their appliances based on energy conservation and cost savings, displayed on familiar blue labeling at retail as comparison-shopping guides.

Trump’s actions have been met with a mix of resistance from consumer protection groups and appliance manufacturers, as well as support from deregulation hawks and decriers of the nanny state. And while the administration continues to review the current standards and solicit comments before considering any official changes, legal challenges to the efforts are being weighed.

A new era of ‘buyer beware’ in electric bills

Originally passed in 1975, EPCA ensures that the entire array of products covered by the law all meet a basic level of energy- and water-efficiency performance, reflected in different price points. A prime example are the ubiquitous yellow Energy Guide stickers affixed to appliances that indicate their annual energy usage and cost. “Consumers who are shopping primarily, if not exclusively, on price also get reasonable efficiency performance [information],” said Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a coalition of environmental and consumer groups, utilities and state governments, based at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit research organization.

Without that level of regulated consumer protection, deLaski said, “It’s buyer beware.”

Consumers would face the risk of less-efficient appliances entering an unregulated marketplace, he said, “and you’re not going to know it until you get the [higher] electric bill.”

Separate from EPCA, the Energy Star labeling program was established by the EPA in 1992 as a public-private partnership. Managed and jointly funded by the DOE, it sets energy-efficiency standards that manufacturers can choose to display on appliances, building products, electronics, lighting fixtures, HVAC equipment and other products as a way for consumers and businesses to make informed purchase decisions.

The EPA estimates that 90% of households recognize the Energy Star label and that over its 33 years, the program has saved five trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity, reduced greenhouse gas emissions by four billion metric tons and saved $500 billion in utility costs. The program’s 2024 operating budget was $35.7 million. To date, every dollar spent has resulted in nearly $350 in energy cost savings.

Americans support energy-efficient appliance efforts

Consumer Reports conducted a national survey in March which found that 87% of respondents support energy-efficient home appliance standards. Nearly a third said that saving money on energy bills would motivate them to buy a more efficient large home appliance.

Last month, in response to plans to shutter Energy Star, the organization issued a statement urging the EPA to preserve the program. “The loss would hit especially hard at a time when people are dealing with unpredictable energy bills and trying to cut expenses,” said Shanika Whitehurst, associate director for Consumer Reports’ product sustainability, research and testing team.

The nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan coalition of consumer, environment, business and government groups, suggests that EPCA and Energy Star actually promote the White House’s goals of lowering families’ energy bills and making the nation energy dominant. “If you start to dismantle the energy-efficiency programs, American households are going to pay for that,” said Jason Reott, ASE’s senior manager of policy. “Energy dominance begins at home, by eliminating energy waste.”

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, which represents more than 150 manufacturers, has historically supported efficiency regulations, but pushed back against the Biden administration’s updates of EPCA standards for gas stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers and other appliances. The law requires the DOE to review standards at least once every six years, a process that has often led to rule changes.

“We have always been able to produce products at higher efficiency levels,” said Jill Notini, vice president of communications and marketing for AHAM, “but there’s a tipping point where you have to stop and say, you have to have the technology that allows those standard levels.”

“We very much appreciate the intent behind [President Trump’s] goals of deregulatory actions,” Notini said. “Our industry needs it after looking at our products and how far they have come in terms of energy efficiency and water use,” alluding to the eight rounds of EPCA reviews, updates and revisions over the years.

Already at or near peak efficiency, industry says

Today’s appliances are at or near their peak efficiency, a result of federal standards and manufacturers’ investment in technology and innovation, Notini said. “So there needs to be a recognition that we can’t stay on this path and continue to ratchet up standards and expect high-performing products,” she added.

AHAM favors revising EPCA standards, she said, based on technological advances rather than the every-six-year requirement. What the association does not endorse, however, is Trump’s request for the DOE to waive federal preemption of states’ regulations regarding the water efficiency of showerheads, faucets and toilets.

“It’s concerning to us that we may not have federal preemption, which creates that certainty that the industry is looking for,” Notini said, noting that several states have established their own efficiency standards on some EPCA-covered products. Federal preemption “truly is what has made energy efficiency such a success.”

AHAM member LG Electronics USA has mixed views on efforts to roll back EPCA, according to senior vice president John I. Taylor. “Generally deregulation is good for business, but there are some specific things in EPCA that are beneficial to American consumers and the American economy,” he said. “Our company has been a leader in driving energy efficiency, so regardless of how the regulations end up, we’ll continue to keep our foot on that accelerator.”

In March, nearly three dozen industry groups and appliance companies, including the Chamber of Commerce, Bosch, Carrier and the Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) sent a letter to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, urging him not to end Energy Star. In April, the U.S. Green Building Council, along with more than 1,000 signatories — among them LG, Miele and Samsung Electronics America — wrote to Zeldin to express concerns about proposed cuts at the EPA, including Energy Star.

Energy Star very popular with consumers, according to retail sector

While major appliance retailers, such as Lowe’s, Home Depot and Best Buy, have not publicly commented on any of these pending regulatory changes, the National Retail Federation, one of several consumer products, manufacturing, real estate and retail organizations that sent a letter on June 6 to a bipartisan group of Congressional leaders, asking them to “strongly support continuation of the non-regulatory and non-partisan Energy Star program within the federal government.”

“Consumers have said overwhelmingly that they support voluntary environmental standard-setting programs like Energy Star,” said Scot Case, vice president of corporate social responsibility and sustainability and executive director for the NRF’s Center for Retail Sustainability. And that’s why retailers the trade group represents “want to make sure they’re able to share the benefits of those programs with the consumer,” he said.

Trump’s tribulations with energy-efficiency and water-conservation standards echo those of libertarians and free-marketers who maintain that regulations often represent government overreach and restrict personal choice. For instance, the libertarian Cato Institute has called Energy Star “a very coarse piece of energy information that may crowd out efforts” to develop more accurate ways to measure energy-operating costs.

“I’m a big proponent of energy efficiency, but I don’t think we need the federal government overriding the choices and preferences that consumers may have when purchasing an appliance,” said Nick Loris, vice president of public policy for C3 Solutions, a conservative energy think tank. He said rolling back EPCA standards is “a step forward in reducing government intervention into decisions that should be best left for producers and consumers.”

Where legal challenges are headed

As with a mounting number of actions taken by the Trump administration this year — from tariffs to immigration — tinkering with EPCA is expected to be challenged in federal courts. The law includes a so-called anti-backsliding provision, which prevents rolling back standards that have already been finalized. A 2004 case deLaski referred to, NRDC v. Abraham, upheld the provision. “Once a DOE standard has been updated and published in the Federal Register, you can’t go backward,” he said of the precedent.

The administration may seek legal authority to enact these deregulation orders by citing the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedures Act as a way to avoid the APA’s public notice-and-comment processes. Yet legal experts, environmental groups and state attorneys general have warned that skipping APA procedures — especially for weakening energy- and water-use standards covered by EPCA — would likely be deemed “arbitrary and capricious” and illegal.

Ultimately, considering the success and popularity of EPCA and Energy Star — with consumers, manufacturers and retailers — as well as the legal underpinnings, it’s entirely possible that both will remain intact, if perhaps with a few tweaks. “In one form or another,” Taylor said, “we expect both will.”

“We know consumers want the information, and the interesting thing about consumers is, they are also voters,” Case said.

Continue Reading

Trending