The McKinsey Quarterly

  • Recommend (47)
  • Text Size
  • Print
  • Download PDF
  • Link to This

CO2 abatement: Exploring options for oil and natural gas companies

Oil and natural gas companies play a central role in CO2 emissions. How can the industry meet the challenge from climate change regulations?

The oil and natural gas industry is directly responsible for just 6 percent of global CO2 emissions, but the debate over how to reduce the global greenhouse gases (GHG) commonly associated with climate change focuses primarily on oil and natural gas companies. These companies are under constant regulatory and reputational pressure to reduce both upstream and downstream CO2 emissions, and in the coming years they will increasingly be expected to provide solutions and make investments. The reason for this emphasis on the industry is that when you add the CO2 emitted in the end uses (transportation, power and heat generation), the petroleum and gas sectors account for almost half of all global emissions.

It is important to understand the position of the oil and gas industry in the context of the larger debate over climate change. By exploring some of the options that the sector has for reducing GHG emissions, oil and natural gas companies can not only stay ahead of regulatory and economic developments but also potentially profit from them.

Current environment

In 2005, direct greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector totaled 2.9 billion tons CO2 equivalent (CO2e), spread equally along the value chain: petroleum upstream and downstream emissions were each about 1.1 billion tons CO2e per year, and emissions from gas transport totaled 0.7 billion tons per year. Assuming no additional abatement measures, emissions are projected to grow by a third (even allowing for a major reduction of 72 percent in flaring as a result of public pressure and high gas prices). Upstream production and processing are expected to become more energy intensive as a result of more complex operational requirements, while energy intensity downstream is expected to stay relatively constant.

It is safe to assume, however, that the growth predicted in this business-as-usual scenario will not be realized. Political and economic realities will result in reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Since that is the case, it is useful to have a straightforward way to evaluate the cost and the impact of the various options. The McKinsey abatement curve, which charts total reduction potential per measure versus the euro per ton of CO2 abated (exhibit), shows that by 2030, an additional 1,100 million tons of CO2 abated (mmtCO2e) can be avoided beyond the business-as-usual scenario with investments that cost €60 per ton of CO2e or less.1 The key opportunities include increasing energy efficiency through operational changes and small investments, reducing flaring, improving gas pipeline planning, and investing in cogeneration and carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The dominant abatement methods differ significantly by region: for North America, Latin America, Western Europe, and OECD2 Pacific, CCS will be the main opportunity through 2030; in Africa, it will be further reduction of flaring; in Eastern Europe and Russia, reducing emissions from the gas pipeline network will have the greatest potential; in China, India, and the rest of developing Asia, energy-efficiency programs and cogeneration will be the most effective levers.

From society’s point of view, the average lifetime cost of these measures will be close to zero, as energy savings will on balance pay for the more expensive ones. The challenge is that most of these measures require upfront investments: capital expenditure to implement abatement in 2030 will be approximately 3.5 percent of annual capital expenditure of the combined oil and natural gas industries—the equivalent of approximately €18 billion per year.

Most companies already have plans for reducing emissions. These include measurement and reporting, operational improvement, and incorporating carbon-abatement objectives in investment proposals. Implementation, however, is in an initial stage and faces several barriers: resources are scarce, in terms of both capital and technical capabilities, and CO2 reduction is not always a top priority. In the near future, however, companies will have to overcome those barriers and move beyond the initial phases of emissions abatement.

Significant regulatory impact

Although climate change regulation is in flux, many countries have concrete regulations or proposals in place. In Europe, the refining industry falls under the cap-and-trade scheme. Credits are auctioned and refineries have to pay for part of their emissions. The United States may soon impose a more rigorous regimen. The Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills, currently making their through the US Congress, would also force refineries to buy credits for the CO2 emitted in the combustion of fuel they sell.

The benefit of a trading scheme is that it optimizes the abatement cost by realizing the lowest-cost CO2 reduction first, irrespective of the sector or geography in which it occurs. A drawback is that the CO2 price will fluctuate over time, making the return on investments volatile. Should CO2 prices remain low for a sustained period—caused, for example, by depressed economic activity, softened CO2 caps, or leakages in the system due to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM, allowing credits from developing countries)—investments in emission reductions are likely to decline. As a result, some countries, such as Norway, have implemented a straightforward, fixed CO2 tax. Some economists and oil and gas companies support a tax scheme because it is more predictable and simpler to implement.

Alternative forms of regulation have been implemented or are being considered. California may impose a CO2 regulation that accounts for CO2 emissions through the entire value chain (including upstream). In Australia and Canada, CCS requirements are being discussed for CO2-intensive upstream operations. Finally, low-carbon fuel standards are being considered in California, and biofuels mandates are being implemented in the European Union and across North America.

For some of the schemes mentioned above, regulators may use benchmarking to steer toward emission improvements. Benchmarking can be done on a product basis (for example, CO2 content or CO2 emitted per volume sold) or on a process basis (for example, relative CO2 emission performance for operating an oil sands asset).

Benchmarking can have a direct implication on the public image of companies, and eventually on company valuations. Some organizations already publish rankings of oil and gas companies, and the results are widely covered in the press. Because of all this attention, oil and gas companies could benefit from a joint approach to determining what the best measures for CO2 emission performance are.

Silver linings

Despite significant downside risks, the upcoming climate change regulation and trends also provide revenue opportunities, both in improving internal operations and by capturing growth opportunities.

Energy efficiency. Oil and gas companies can continue to take a leading role in identifying and implementing energy-efficiency programs. Good programs should also focus on organizational challenges, particularly how to make the improvements stick. Programs focused on energy efficiency could be justified, at least for the next few years, as most companies can make large improvements and there is specific interest from the outside world for progress in that field.

GHG trading. Oil and gas companies with trading capabilities can make significant profits in the CO2 markets. Arbitrage opportunities exist for companies that have both existing CO2 emissions and abatement opportunities. CDM projects, in which CO2 reductions are captured in approved projects outside the European Union, can have good returns. Companies with both proprietary views on how CO2 regulation will be developing and views on the longer-term price development of CO2 can make portfolio adjustments that could create value if CO2 regulation continues to strengthen.

Biofuels. Some oil and gas companies are well positioned to become biofuels marketers and even producers. Second-generation biofuels appear to be harder to commercialize than originally anticipated, and it is still unclear which technology or technologies will succeed—for example, enzyme conversion of cellulosic material and algae. Until that time, stakes in first-generation fuels may become attractive again should oil prices rise or biofuel mandates increase.

Other fuels. On the commercial side of the business, retail and B2B customer offerings can be expanded with CO2-focused solutions. This expansion could include offering fuels and lubricants that yield higher mileage or creating energy-efficiency programs for business-to-business (B2B) customers. Complementing retail sites with electricity or hydrogen fueling stations could become a new source of income, it could also improve the public profile of the brand.

CCS. Carbon capture and storage is likely to become a long-term internal-abatement opportunity (or requirement) for refineries and upstream operations with high CO2 emissions. Beyond this, oil and gas companies may be well positioned to develop and implement CCS for third parties, since they have the access to and knowledge of depleted oil and gas fields that could become storage sites, and they have experience with handling CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery. They might have additional synergies with liquefied natural gas (LNG) regasification plants to cool and compress CO2 into the storage locations.

In addition to the list above, investments in renewable power sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal may be more or less attractive depending on specific company capabilities and the appetite to enter a nascent and not directly related industry.

Oil and natural gas companies play a central role in global emissions both as direct emitters of CO2 and as suppliers of fossil fuels. Regulation will therefore increasingly affect the profitability of these companies in selected regions, and it will change long-term demand patterns. The top performers in this sector will be the ones that stay ahead of these changes by mitigating the downside risks through internal-abatement efforts and by taking advantage of value creation opportunities that this rapidly changing business environment presents.

About the Authors

Scott Nyquist is a director in McKinsey’s Houston office, and Jurriaan Ruys is a principal in the Amsterdam office.

Notes

1 A threshold of €60/t is applied, as this covers most technical measures available today.

2 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Recommend (47)
  • 8 MARCH 2010
    Jill Feblowitz
    Director, Business Technology
    IDC Energy Insights
    Framingham, MA USA

    ...“California may impose a CO2 regulation that accounts for CO2 emissions through the entire value chain (including upstream).” Haven’t found anything in the regulations or pending legislation.

    .
    Jill Feblowitz
    Director, Business Technology
    IDC Energy Insights
    Framingham, MA USA

    I’m wondering if you can provide a source for this statement: “Alternative forms of regulation have been implemented or are being considered. California may impose a CO2 regulation that accounts for CO2 emissions through the entire value chain (including upstream).” Haven’t found anything in the regulations or pending legislation.

    .
  • 9 FEBRUARY 2010
    Gurbakhs S Baveja
    Consultant
    DNV Ltd.
    Mumbai, India

    As you may appreciate, one major concern of environmentally active organisations including a few NGOs, is how to achieve 100% surety that there is no leakage or pilferage of any kind, from such CCS sites....

    .
    Gurbakhs S Baveja
    Consultant
    DNV Ltd.
    Mumbai, India

    As you may appreciate, one major concern of environmentally active organisations, including a few NGOs, is how to achieve 100% surety that there is no leakage or pilferage of any kind, from such CCS sites. It calls for a detailed and extensive study of the risks associated with such sites and how to combat/mitigate these risks. There are proven methodologies, which can lead to safer storage of thus captured carbon. Yet it calls for, to develop and use proper risk assessment tools, which take into account the meterological, environmental, and seismic happenings below the earth’s surface, specifically at the strata, in the vicinity of areas around the CCS pits/sites. The extrapolation of the data to establish likely risks is a highly specialised job, which very few experts can do.

    .
  • 2 FEBRUARY 2010
    Jesse Baltutis
    Program Officer
    UNEP
    Nairobi, Kenya

    ...Thank you for a good article, but I would think that renewables should be given more attention then a one-line afterthought at the end of the article.

    .
    Jesse Baltutis
    Program Officer
    UNEP
    Nairobi, Kenya

    The above article is excellent in setting out what oil and gas companies will have to do in the future to decrease their CO2 contribution, but I think too little emphasis was put on the role renewables will take in the short- and long-term future for energy creation and GHG mitigation. The renewable market is a huge potential investment for energy companies, with increasing market access and market share. The rate of oil field discoveries is only going to decrease, whereas the potential for wind farm locations is going to increase signifcantly, leading to a decrease in costs for the producers and consumers. GHG reduction in the oil and gas industry is a directly related industry to renewables, such as wind turbines, geothermal, or concentrated solar power, and should be given as much credit as biofuels (fraught with contention over the crop used), or CCS (also highly controversial). Thank you for a good article, but I would think that renewables should be given more attention then a one-line afterthought at the end of the article.

    .
  • 1 FEBRUARY 2010
    Jeff LeBrun
    Cleantech finance
    University of Michigan
    Ann Arbor, MI USA

    ...No single company has the ability to raise their prices, but if they raised their internal discount rates for petroleum-based projects relative to other projects...

    .
    Jeff LeBrun
    Cleantech finance
    University of Michigan
    Ann Arbor, MI USA

    What about raising prices by accounting for the increased risk of carbon in investment decisions that are made today? No single company has the ability to raise their prices, but if they raised their internal discount rates for petroleum-based projects relative to other projects, then they may not invest as heavily in expanding capacity, which could raise the price of petroleum in the long-run and drive adoption of more fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrid vehicle sales are strongly correlated to the price of petroleum. Higher prices would mean more profit for the oil industry even if the incremental increase in revenue may be less.

    It is likely that gasoline in the US will eventually get taxed to raise the price up to around $5 per gallon, to get closer to being par with prices in the rest of the world and to promote the political strategy of gaining independence from foreign oil, which is impossible at today’s prices. $5 per gallon is the price where a switch to EV’s becomes close to making economic sense to the consumer. So, if the industry decided to invest less in new capacity and raised prices themselves, they may also be preventing the government from doing that for them, and eating into their profits while they are at it.

    A cautious attitude in the industry towards investing in petroleum capacity that raises discount rates of more carbon-intensive projects may help preserve long-term profitability while also supporting the technology investment that is needed. The easiest methods to account for this risk today seem to be 1) putting an internal price on CO2 on all projects and incorporating that into corporate finance decisions (a range can be examined with a sensitivity to possible regulatory futures), and 2) closely reexamining the discount rates used to evaluate different types of projects and their respective performance in scenarios with different combinations of CO2 and petroleum taxes.

    .
  • 1 FEBRUARY 2010
    Jean-Pierre Hauet
    Associate partner
    KB Intelligence
    France

    ...The question of water resources also has to be addressed, as these new technologies are very water consuming....

    .
    Jean-Pierre Hauet
    Associate partner
    KB Intelligence
    France

    I believe that the article could have been more specific about the new challenge the oil and gas industry is currently facing: How to develop non conventional oil and gas resources—today in Canada and in the USA, but likely in the future in other countries—without increasing the GHG emissions. The question of water resources also has to be addressed, as these new technologies are very water consuming. We should not forget that the water challenge it at least as critical as the climate change one. Furthermore, the issues are interrelated.

    .
  • 1 FEBRUARY 2010
    Robert Rahm
    President
    RACER Interests LLC
    Oklahoma City, OK USA

    It was interesting to me that you didn’t call out this sensible effort....

    .
    Robert Rahm
    President
    RACER Interests LLC
    Oklahoma City, OK USA

    It was interesting to me that you didn’t call out this sensible effort. From Sandridge Energy’s 2008 letter to shareholders: During the summer of 2008, SandRidge signed a historic joint venture agreement with Occidental Petroleum Corporation (Oxy) to build the Century Plant – the largest CO2 treating plant in the world, in terms of the volume of CO2 removed and captured. Construction is currently under way, with Phase I scheduled for completion in the second quarter of 2010. Under the agreement, Oxy will spend $800 million for the construction of the plant and SandRidge will build the plant and drill the wells necessary to deliver the combined CO2 and methane gas stream to the plant for treatment. Once separated, Oxy will take the CO2 to the Permian Basin for environmentally-friendly sequestration in their tertiary oil recovery projects while we sell the methane into the marketplace. Our 30-year contract provides each company with a product that can be used separately but not together in the same gas stream. Oxy will get a waste gas that assists in their oil recovery projects, and SandRidge will receive pipeline-quality methane that could not otherwise be produced and sold without the capability to remove the CO2.

    .
Submit Your Comments

The user information you enter into this form will not update your site profile. To update your profile, please visit your profile page.

Subject CO2 abatement: Exploring options for oil and natural gas companies

*Required

We may publish your comments online and in the print edition of McKinsey Quarterly. Those chosen, which may be edited for length and clarity, will appear along with your name and details, but not your e-mail address. We will use your e-mail address only to send you a confirmation copy of your comments and to notify you if we publish them online.

We value your feedback and will consider it carefully. Nonetheless, we receive so many comments that we cannot acknowledge all of them.

See also:
Preview

Embed E-mail