methanol

After successfully reducing emissions of pollutants like sulfur and nitrogen, the global shipping industry now is focused on ratcheting down — and eventually eliminating — its emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). It’s no easy task. Crude-oil-based bunker like low-sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) and marine gas oil (MGO) are readily available, relatively inexpensive, and pack a lot of energy into each gallon. But GHG-reduction goals are in place, both globally and in the European Union (EU), and shipping companies are taking steps to meet them, initially with more LNG-fueled vessels and later with ships powered by clean methanol, clean ammonia and biofuels. In today’s RBN blog, we discuss the shift in bunker fuel consumption since IMO 2020 was implemented five years ago and the efforts to transition to even cleaner shipping fuels through the late 2020s and beyond. 

There are two primary drivers for consuming more natural gas close to where it emerges from production wells. One is to eliminate routine gas flaring, which is wasteful and environmentally detrimental, and the other — especially true in takeaway-constrained plays like the Permian — is to add value to gas that otherwise would be sold downstream at steeply discounted prices. In today’s RBN blog, we discuss some innovative approaches to maximizing gas value by consuming it “in-basin” — and the potential for a lot more gas to be used in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico.

Many may have nits to pick with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) — some may not like one or both at all — but it would be hard to argue with the view that they provide generous financial support for the production of clean hydrogen and the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2). And now, with a clearer understanding of the tax credits that will be available going forward, companies active in the clean hydrogen and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) spaces are scrambling to advance large-scale projects that would benefit from the federal government’s largesse. That includes blue methanol plants, which produce a super-low-carbon version of the petrochemical intermediate and shipping fuel by capturing and sequestering most of the CO2 that is generated during production. In today’s RBN blog, we look at the blue methanol projects taking shape along the Gulf Coast.

When the world’s second-largest container-ship company makes a massive, long-term commitment to a carbon-neutral shipping fuel, you can’t help but take notice. Over the past few months, A.P. Moller-Maersk has placed orders for a dozen large, ocean-going container vessels that will be fueled by “green” methanol, which can be produced by “breaking up” water to produce hydrogen, then combining the H2 with captured CO2 to “make up” enviro-friendly bunkers. And, to ensure an ample supply of the climate-friendly fuels for its first 12 “boxships,” the shipping giant also has entered into strategic partnerships with six alternative fuel companies that by 2025 will be producing a total of at least 730,000 metric tons (MT) a year of either bio-ethanol or e-methanol — two chemically identical forms of green methanol. In today’s RBN blog, we discuss why Maersk thinks bio-methanol and e-methanol may be the carbon-neutral shipping fuels everyone’s been searching for.

The international shipping industry’s push to significantly reduce its carbon footprint over the next three decades is raising an obvious question: Is there a zero- or low-carbon bunker fuel that meets all of the industry’s basic criteria — things like availability, safety, and relative economy, not to mention sufficient on-board energy to transport massive, city-block-sized vessels thousands of miles at a clip. There is no clear answer yet, but there is a lot of talk about ammonia, or more specifically ammonia produced in a way that either generates no carbon dioxide (CO2) or that captures and sequesters much of the CO2 that is generated during production. But several major challenges must be met before “green” and “blue” ammonia can lay claim to even a small slice of the bunkers market, as we discuss in today’s RBN blog.

International shipowners need to significantly reduce their carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 and will come under pressure to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Given that the industry currently depends almost entirely on fossil fuels for ship propulsion — and that every zero- or near-zero-carbon alternative faces serious headwinds — it won’t be an easy or low-cost transition. One pathway would be expanding the use of LNG as a bunker fuel in the near term and then shifting to alternatives like bio-LNG and synthetic LNG as they become more commercially available and economic. Another would be to use “green” or “blue” hydrogen, ammonia, or methanol. But there are challenges to each, not the least of which are the small volumes of non-traditional fuels being produced — and their high cost — and the need for new infrastructure both to produce and distribute them, as we discuss in today’s RBN blog.

Leading international shipping associations and many of the large shipowners they represent are pressing the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to take a much more aggressive approach to decarbonizing their industry, and calling for a $100/metric ton fee on carbon dioxide emissions from ships to spur investment in no-carbon propulsion systems. In effect, shipowners—themselves under pressure from their large, ESG-minded customers, are telling the IMO that its goals of reducing global shipping’s carbon intensity by 40% by 2030 and total greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 are far too timid. They are insisting that the IMO set the industry on a course to quickly ramp down its carbon dioxide emissions in the 2020s and achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by mid-century. If the shipowners prevail, it could result in the phase-out of hydrocarbon-based bunker fuel in favor of low-carbon alternatives like ammonia, hydrogen, and electric batteries. In today’s RBN blog, we begin a review of the big changes ahead for global bunker fuel and what they mean for oil and gas producers and refiners.

Petrochemicals form the backbone of modern consumer society. They provide the plastics and other materials needed to make most of the products we depend on, everything from computers and cellphones to car tires and fertilizer — not to mention N95 masks and other personal protective equipment. Petrochemicals come from crude oil, natural gas, and/or NGLs like ethane and propane, of course, and a good way for an energy-producing area to add value to its raw hydrocarbons is to develop petchem plants nearby. Alberta, Canada’s leading energy-producing province, is making a new push to encourage such projects. Today, we discuss the latest provincial program and what it hopes to accomplish.

Even in tough times like these, companies need to look ahead, to consider what steps they would take--or investments they would make--if, for example, oil prices were to rise to X dollars per barrel, or the cost of drilling and completing a well were to fall by Y%. For methanol producers, these “what-ifs” might include what if methanol prices (holding steady the past few months at $249/metric ton, or MT) were to rebound to where they stood a year ago ($442/MW in May 2015)? Or what if we could add new capacity at a fraction of the cost of new-build? Today, we consider how building more methanol capacity might make sense in the right circumstances.

Times are tough in the methanol market. Posted and spot prices for methanol have continued falling (to levels not seen since 2010). New methanol capacity, planned during the good ol’ days, has been coming online, further depressing prices. And while more methanol-to-olefins (MTO) plants are starting up in China—the product’s biggest market—they are running at far less than full speed. But one bright spot for U.S. methanol producers is dirt-cheap natural gas, providing U.S. plants a competitive advantage versus those in the rest of the world. Today, we examine recent developments in the methanol market and consider what may be coming next.