The big new Exxon Mobil climate change deal that got an assist from Joe Biden
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.”
The telematics experts at Geotab analyzed aggregated data from thousands connected commercial vehicles throughout 2024. Using data-driven insights that focused on US truck stop locations and medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle driving range, Geotab found what we already knew: electric vehicles are real road ready, right now.
An Altitude by Geotab study published earlier this quarter analyzed 2024 aggregated data from Geotab-connected commercial vehicles, revealing that 58% of medium-duty trucks and 41% of heavy-duty trucks drive less than 250 miles between depots. The study focused on medium-duty (Classes 3-6) and heavy-duty (Classes 7-8) truck data gathered from driving patterns, routes, and stops on real roads to determine the feasibility of electric and alt-fuel truck adoption and to help identify the most strategic locations for charging infrastructure build out.
Just how many Geotab-connected trucks were in this study, you ask? It’s a lot. Geotab-connected vehicles logged and analyzed more than 700 million miles last year alone (over 1 billion kilometers), so they’ve put in the work and the math maths.
We’re not in the messy middle anymore. The trucks are ready.
Collaboration is critical
The Altitude study shows that a huge number of truck routes are ready to electrify, but they’re quick to point out successful electrification requires close collaboration between fleet operators and utilities, with the latter needing to anticipate the shift and work to provide the necessary infrastructure for more widespread electric truck adoption.
“The trucking industry is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by the need for efficiency, sustainability, and economic benefits,” explains Nate Veeh, AVP of Market Development at Altitude by Geotab. “Our analysis reveals that a substantial portion of medium- and heavy-duty trucks have daily driving patterns that are well-suited for electrification … by using data insights, utilities and other key stakeholders can pinpoint where truck concentrations are and understand their aggregate driving behaviors, to make informed decisions in terms of truck electrification and the subsequent demands on energy grids and location of EV charging networks.”
Veeh makes a solid point here. It doesn’t matter how badly a fleet may want to electrify, they can’t do it alone. Their business operations have to support electrification, the trucks that meet their needs have to be readily available, they need to be capable of doing the job, (and at a price or payment they can afford), and the charging infrastructure – either public or private – has to be built out in such a way that big trucks with big trailers can navigate them.
Those pull-up Tesla Superchargers at your local Target? They won’t work.
These won’t work
States like California and Illinois are leading the charge when it comes to commercial fleet electrification, thanks in large part to aggressive incentive programs helping to build out commercial charging infrastructure and reduce the higher up-front costs typically associated with EV adoption.
In Illinois, the state’s largest utility, ComEd, is investing an $168 million through 2028 to help businesses and public sector organizations transition to electric vehicles, offering rebates of up to $7,500 for light-duty EVs like Ford F-150 Lightning or Chevy Brightdrop, and as much as $75,000 for heavy-duty commercial vehicles like the Volvo VNR Electric or Windrose R700. Those incentives can be stacked with additional federal tax incentives and grants for an even bigger impact.
And those incentives? The proof is in the electric pudding – and EV adoption in Illinois is outpacing the rest of the nation 4:1, in part because the stakeholders identified in the Geotab study are working together in lock step to help drive electrification efforts, reduce emissions, and generally help the people of Illinois breathe a little bit easier. Imagine what we could achieve if we had that kind of alignment on a national level!
You can read the Altitude by Geotab at the source link, below, then let us know what you think of the methods and conclusions in the comments.
SOURCE: Geotab.
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.
There’s a reason the phrase “you get what you pay for” has stuck around for so long – because it’s usually true. And when it comes to electric bikes, that old saying might be more important than ever.
Sure, everyone wants a deal. Prices are increasing, workers are treated worse than ever, and the immediate future of the economy seems to depend at least partially on how well a golf game goes this weekend. So I don’t blame anyone for wanting to find a bargain when it comes time to shop for the best alternative to buying an expensive car.
The problem is that a lot of people don’t realize what they’re sacrificing for those low prices, and the fact that automotive media seems to have finally woken up to electric bikes is only making that worse with dangerous expectations that don’t align with reality.
Now, add in the fact that these days, it’s easier than ever to find an e-bike online for under $600. Scroll through Amazon, Walmart, or even eBay, and you’ll see a flood of lesser-known electric bikes with flashy listings, bold promises, and suspiciously low prices. At first glance, they can seem like a great deal – especially if you’re just dipping your toe into the world of e-bikes and don’t want to spend over a grand. But here’s the truth: that bargain-bin e-bike might cost you a whole lot more in the long run, whether it’s in repairs, hospital bills, or just frustration.
Now I’m not saying you need to spend a fortune. Sure, if you have several thousand dollars on hand then I’d put you on a beautifully made Priority e-bike for city commuting or an ultra-rugged Tern for carrying cargo and children. But most of us aren’t looking to spend $3,000 on an electric bicycle, and that’s ok. You can still get a decent e-bike for a lot less, but scrimping too much can lead to a whole host of future problems.
Let’s start with what may be the most serious issue: battery safety. The battery is the heart of any electric bike, and it’s also the component most likely to cause real danger if it’s poorly made. Many of these ultra-budget e-bikes aren’t certified to UL 2849 (e-bike systems) or UL 2271 (lithium-ion battery) safety standards. That’s a big red flag.
UL certification means a battery has been rigorously tested for things like short-circuit protection, thermal runaway resistance, water ingress, and more. When you skip those safety tests to cut costs, you’re gambling with something that literally sits between your legs. That’s not an area I’d want to take that chance on.
Fires caused by uncertified or damaged e-bike batteries have become a growing concern, especially in dense urban areas. While they are still rare occurrences in the broader e-bike market, they are almost exclusively caused by non-certified batteries. Cities like New York have already moved to ban the sale of e-bikes without UL-listed batteries for precisely this reason. And while these fires are rare relative to the number of bikes out there, they tend to involve the cheapest models on the market – often the ones with questionable quality control and little to no brand accountability.
But battery issues are just the beginning. The rest of the bike matters too, and that’s where a lot of these low-cost options fall apart… literally. Most $400 to $600 e-bikes are built with generic components from unknown suppliers, slapped together in factories that don’t perform long-term frame durability testing or ensure consistent torque specs on assembly lines.
I’ve personally bought bikes in this price range (you know, for science) that arrived with brakes that weren’t fully connected, bolts that weren’t tightened, and wheels out of true right out of the box.
These bikes often use plastic components, pot-metal crank arms, cheap suspension forks that do nothing but squeak, and undersized brake rotors that struggle to stop a 65 lb (30 kg) e-bike, let alone one with a rider onboard. That’s not just an annoyance – it’s a serious safety issue.
E-bikes move faster and carry more weight than traditional bicycles, which means every component needs to work harder. If the brakes fade, the wheels wobble, or the frame starts to flex in ways it shouldn’t, you’re putting your safety at risk. We’ve seen e-bikes break in half before, and it isn’t pretty.
Then there’s the ride quality. Cheap e-bikes often use unbranded motors and basic square wave controllers that provide jerky acceleration, sluggish pedal assist, and otherwise poor performance. The battery may say “48V 10Ah” but only deliver half that in real-world use. Range claims are frequently exaggerated (though to be fair, much of the industry is guilty there), and there’s often no support line to call if something goes wrong. Once the bike arrives at your door, you’re on your own.
All of this isn’t to say that every low-cost e-bike is a death trap. There are exceptions. Lectric’s XP Lite 2.0 is an excellent example of a sub-$800 e-bike that punches way above its weight class. It comes from a reputable company, includes safety-focused features, is UL-compliant, and has a real US-based support team behind it. Lectric isn’t alone, as there are also good entry-level options with solid reputations and better-than-average quality bikes out there, though much of the industry would agree that Lectric is leading considerably in that regard. But keep in mind that bikes like the XP Lite 2.0 are the outliers – not the norm.
And while $800 isn’t exactly a hard and fast rule, I’ve rarely seen something below that figure that I’d be comfortable putting my mom on.
The biggest problem is that it’s hard for new buyers to tell the difference. When every product listing looks polished and every spec sheet claims 40 miles (65 km) of range and “powerful 500W motor,” it’s easy to get lured into a bad purchase.
But an e-bike isn’t a blender. It’s a transportation vehicle. You’re trusting it to carry you at 20+ mph (32+ km/h) through traffic, down hills, and across intersections. Saving a few hundred bucks at checkout probably isn’t worth it if the bike can’t stop properly… or worse, catches fire in your garage.
If your budget is tight, that’s understandable. But rather than buying the cheapest e-bike you can find today, consider saving a bit longer, buying used from a reputable brand on places like Facebook Marketplace or Cragislist, or looking for refurbished models with some kind of warranty. And whatever you do, make sure the battery is certified, the brand has real customer support, and you’re not putting your safety in the hands of a mystery vendor with a generic Gmail address.
Electric bikes are incredible tools for transportation, fun, and freedom. But when they’re made with the wrong priorities – cutting cost at all costs – they stop being tools and start being liabilities. Do your homework, buy from a reputable company, and don’t let the price tag blind you to what really matters: your safety.
Read more: Want to see a list of GOOD yet inexpensive e-bikes? Here are the best we’ve tested under $1,000
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
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.
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.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike