Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Dana Perkins and you're listening to Switch It
Speaker 1: on the BENF podcast. Today we talk about methane, the
Speaker 1: other greenhouse gas that maybe doesn't get as much attention
Speaker 1: as CEO two does, but certainly did this last week
Speaker 1: in Glasgow. Let's start with a few facts about methane. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, it has a shorter half life than
Speaker 1: carbon dioxide, meaning that it's potency drops precipitously after about
Speaker 1: ten years as compared to the three hundred plus years
Speaker 1: for carbon dioxide. It also is an eighty times more
Speaker 1: potent greenhouse gas. So that is why the Global Methane Pledge,
Speaker 1: which was signed by over one hundred countries at cop
Speaker 1: is really so significant. This pledge is looking to cut
Speaker 1: methane emissions by thirty percent by the year. So today
Speaker 1: I speak with Antoine Wagner Jones, who covers Amia energy
Speaker 1: transitions at BENF, and Na cool Nair, who is in
Speaker 1: America's gas analyst, and they're going to speak about where
Speaker 1: the emissions come from, which countries are leading the charge
Speaker 1: on the plug edge, and how one goes about detecting
Speaker 1: methane emissions. To begin with, they wrote a piece recently
Speaker 1: titled Global d mechanization poised to give us l G
Speaker 1: an edge, and there's a good amount of coverage on
Speaker 1: the pledge on the COP twenty six Bloomberg blog. As
Speaker 1: a reminder, BIENNAP does not provide investment of strategy advice.
Speaker 1: And we've got a complete disclaimer at the end of
Speaker 1: the show. But now let's speak with Antoine and that
Speaker 1: cool Antoine and Nicole, let's talk about this as a
Speaker 1: greenhouse gas and why it is significant because I think
Speaker 1: that there has been historically so much conversation around carbon emissions,
Speaker 1: and very rightfully, but where is methane's role in the
Speaker 1: greenhouse gas world? So methane carbon working pretty different ways.
Speaker 1: I think one of the ways of looking at it
Speaker 1: is carbon sticks around in the atmosphere for a very
Speaker 1: long time. Methane is much also lived. It has a
Speaker 1: very short half life, but within that amount of time
Speaker 1: that it remains in the atmosphere, traps more than if
Speaker 1: we're looking over two decades from emission, it traps more
Speaker 1: than eighty times the heat that the same amount of
Speaker 1: carbon dark side would. So let's call this out. How
Speaker 1: long is a very long time? How long does c
Speaker 1: O two stay in the atmosphere hundreds and hundreds of years.
Speaker 1: And how long does meet things stay in the atmosphere, Well,
Speaker 1: it says it's half life is a lot shorter, and
Speaker 1: a lot of the effects dissipates dramatically after the first
Speaker 1: decade or so. Okay, so we're talking about roughly ten
Speaker 1: years if we're thinking about the worst impacts, which is
Speaker 1: particularly relevant right now as there are both short term
Speaker 1: and long term emission schools that countries are actively creating
Speaker 1: as we sit here recording during cop week. But back
Speaker 1: to the significance of me things, what is the scale
Speaker 1: of the problem in terms of how much is being
Speaker 1: admitted since you're just noting that it's eighty times eight
Speaker 1: times and greenhouse gas A good, great question. I think
Speaker 1: one of the things that's come out recently there's the
Speaker 1: Governmental Pound Climate Change to Report, the first of three
Speaker 1: this year that have been released, which basically sets out
Speaker 1: that about a quarter of all heat that's been trapped
Speaker 1: in the atmosphere since the pre industrial age is down
Speaker 1: to me thing and that makes it very important to tackle.
Speaker 1: And also levels of meeting and risen a lot more
Speaker 1: over the last two centuries than levels of CO two
Speaker 1: very much view it as sort of carbon dioxide naughty
Speaker 1: little brother, if you will, And I think a lot
Speaker 1: of focus at least in the last decade or so
Speaker 1: has been on the carbon dioxide and methane has been
Speaker 1: sort of been able to get away with nefariuff activities,
Speaker 1: if you will. In the meantime, in which industries is
Speaker 1: this coming from? I think technically the largest source of
Speaker 1: ME thing globally is the agricultural sector, but the one
Speaker 1: that's been under the most focus, and you know what
Speaker 1: we want to speak about today is oil and gas.
Speaker 1: So I've definitely heard of ME thing from cows and
Speaker 1: then a link to beef, and yes, that is a
Speaker 1: whole another conversation action regarding where it comes from also
Speaker 1: other parts of the agriculture sector as well. Correct, Yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly a cow's landfills. I guess landfills aren't really agriculture,
Speaker 1: but there are abroadly other sources other than oil and gas.
Speaker 1: Oil and gas gets a lot of the heat though. Okay,
Speaker 1: so oil and gas. The space that we at BNEF
Speaker 1: spend a good amount of time thinking about as we
Speaker 1: think about the energy transition and some of the opportunities
Speaker 1: that this industry has in terms to pivot their business
Speaker 1: and look at a potentially more sustainable future. Why are
Speaker 1: they at the center of the discussion around me thing?
Speaker 1: From my opinion, I think is really down to the
Speaker 1: fact that there has been the sort of clamp down
Speaker 1: from a climate perspective on oil and gas companies in
Speaker 1: the sector as a whole, and this mostly came from
Speaker 1: a common ox side perspective. But then to just sort
Speaker 1: of increase the scope and capture me thing within that
Speaker 1: clampdown I think was a fair and fairly easy at
Speaker 1: tension to to make and to be fair, when we
Speaker 1: talk about this in front of all and gas companies,
Speaker 1: they talked about what about the agriculture sector? So I
Speaker 1: think that this is a good opportunity for oil and
Speaker 1: gas to sort of get ahead of itself and sort
Speaker 1: of stepped benchmark, if you will. And it works very
Speaker 1: differently if we sort of compare and gas to waste
Speaker 1: and agriculture and natural sources of meeting I mean in
Speaker 1: terms of reducing them tackling those emissions, it's a lot
Speaker 1: more achievable at a low cost. The i as put
Speaker 1: out estimates for the percentage of oil and gas emissions
Speaker 1: that can be reduced at a net profit about it says,
Speaker 1: and then at low cost for many others because you
Speaker 1: can actually if you find an off taker market the
Speaker 1: gas that mean thing that you're capturing, which is effectively
Speaker 1: natural gas, and the technologies for actually making those reductions
Speaker 1: are broadly available today. So again there was a UN
Speaker 1: report that stated about forty of those oil and gas
Speaker 1: emissions can be basically cut out using technologies that are
Speaker 1: available today. It's not rocket science. It's sort of upgrading pipelines,
Speaker 1: um like valves and pipelines, compressor stations. It's simple stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: plugging empty wells pretty easy to do. So this is
Speaker 1: essentially leakage. This isn't causes an industrial bride product of
Speaker 1: creating things. This is waste. It's funny you say that
Speaker 1: data because I would actually describe it as sort of
Speaker 1: maybe not waste, but lost useful product because essentially natural
Speaker 1: gas is predominantly meeting and so if you can capture it,
Speaker 1: you can sell it and gain perhaps additional revenue that
Speaker 1: you're effectively just getting or letting loose into the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: In terms of leakage, I'd say most of it is
Speaker 1: accidental fugitive if you will, But a lot of times
Speaker 1: it is intentionally vented just because the infrastructure isn't set
Speaker 1: in place to capture it. And yes, so they're like
Speaker 1: losing value by doing it. So one would assume that
Speaker 1: incentives are aligned for the oil and gas industry to
Speaker 1: not want to lose this potentially sellable product. Why is
Speaker 1: is an important role for governments to play in trying
Speaker 1: to restrict or enforce the oil and gas industry to
Speaker 1: actually handle some of this leakage. Yes, I think a
Speaker 1: lot of the leakage and the reason behind it is
Speaker 1: that companies and operators don't actually know it's being released.
Speaker 1: It's an invisible gas. It seeps out of the upstream sector,
Speaker 1: maybe through a loose valve or compressor, and those emissions
Speaker 1: are broadly unknown to the operator and they don't want
Speaker 1: to go and to take the effort to sort of
Speaker 1: track that down and figure out how to reduce it.
Speaker 1: So really, I think, at least from a government perspective,
Speaker 1: it's more about putting pressure on the company's to actually
Speaker 1: start doing it, because it is definitely possible to do yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's that freshest built up for a number of reasons,
Speaker 1: and one part is just that we're better able to
Speaker 1: sort of monitor and verify large emission events using satellites.
Speaker 1: So satellite technology has progressed very rapidly over the last
Speaker 1: few decades, and we're now at a stage where using
Speaker 1: for example, the Copernica's satellite program that's run by the
Speaker 1: European Space Agency has been used by data providers to
Speaker 1: pick up sort of large emission events above five tons
Speaker 1: per hour, for example, and that gives you an idea
Speaker 1: of what's going on in places where geographically the conditions
Speaker 1: are aligned for you to be able to get good
Speaker 1: satellite data. And that recognition, along with efforts by n
Speaker 1: g O S and by other organizations and by oil
Speaker 1: and gas producers too, So basically measure emissions using other
Speaker 1: techniques closer to the ground, has given us a much
Speaker 1: more granular picture of emissions then we've had in the past.
Speaker 1: And that's also being really at the heart of our
Speaker 1: recognition of of me things being a problem and also
Speaker 1: the scale of the challenge involved in technic So there's
Speaker 1: technical monitoring that then leads us to a place where
Speaker 1: we can actually fix the problem, and then there's this
Speaker 1: shorter time horizon around a decade where we can actually
Speaker 1: see real tangible results in their being brought down. So
Speaker 1: this seems like this is an area where we can
Speaker 1: make some pretty dramatic progress when it comes to climate goals.
Speaker 1: Was that fair summary to say that that's why you
Speaker 1: think that this may have come up from a policy
Speaker 1: standpoint at least in the CUP conversations which are taking place. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's fair. Cup. The number of issues that
Speaker 1: are on the table that are getting a lot of attention,
Speaker 1: that means that in terms of media attention, it's going
Speaker 1: to be issues like methane, which are more like side
Speaker 1: issues usually where we'll probably be seated seeing tangible progress.
Speaker 1: That's something to sort of follow carefully. Over the last
Speaker 1: few weeks, we've seen the US and the European Commission
Speaker 1: come together launched the Global Methane Pledge, trying to get
Speaker 1: countries to agree to cut methane emissions, and the diplomacy
Speaker 1: around that is going to be interesting to follow. We've
Speaker 1: already seen the European Commissions say that, well, we've seen
Speaker 1: spokespeople say that eight countries have signed the pledge. Will
Speaker 1: be seeing more details over the course of this week.
Speaker 1: So who are the countries that are leading the charge,
Speaker 1: one might say, on some of the enforcement around the
Speaker 1: Paris Agreement targets on meeting. So I'm based in the US,
Speaker 1: and I think effectively, over the past year or so,
Speaker 1: maybe a bit longer, the US has gone a full
Speaker 1: one e D and gone from what you could view
Speaker 1: as a bit of a lagguard to perhaps even so
Speaker 1: far as if I may go so far as to say,
Speaker 1: a bit of a leader on the topic. Where a
Speaker 1: year ago under the previous administration, we were revoking rules
Speaker 1: that have helped curb emissions along pipelines to now, you know,
Speaker 1: signing that Global Meeting pledge with the EU to really
Speaker 1: be a leader, a focal point, a um sort of
Speaker 1: someone the industry can look up to in terms of
Speaker 1: taking proactive action to reduce emissions. So there's some alignment
Speaker 1: here between the Eropean Union in the United States and
Speaker 1: trying to achieve the targets around meeting. What is the
Speaker 1: scale of the problem in these two parts of the world,
Speaker 1: and how do their emission really relate in terms of
Speaker 1: size and scope with other parts of the world. That's um, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a good question, and that the answer is that
Speaker 1: we don't know exactly. So the IA has come out
Speaker 1: with estimates for the largest source of emissions from the
Speaker 1: oil and gas sector across different geographies. Those involved assumptions.
Speaker 1: Those also involved using imperfect data. Although it's a very
Speaker 1: thorough assessment. We're still relying on satellites, for example, to
Speaker 1: give us an idea of what's going on in Russia.
Speaker 1: And that's tricky because satellites are good at picking up
Speaker 1: emissions when things are dry, when they're well lit, So
Speaker 1: the Permian Basin in Texas, for example, in the US
Speaker 1: is a perfect example of that. But they're much worse
Speaker 1: at doing it for places that are offshore, like production
Speaker 1: off the coast of Qatar, when they're equatorial so in
Speaker 1: Nigeria for example, or when they're in northern latitudes. So
Speaker 1: Russia is one of those countries. And that's because of
Speaker 1: the reflectivity of the surface of water. That makes things
Speaker 1: tricky in terms of getting a very good view on
Speaker 1: emissions around producing areas. That doesn't mean we can't track
Speaker 1: what's going on to some extent, but it does mean
Speaker 1: that it's difficult. Yeah, I don't know if you If
Speaker 1: you have that information, I'd love to love to fear
Speaker 1: I basically need to have satellite business because satellites of
Speaker 1: the future here, Yeah, exactly, Okay, So they're definitely challenges
Speaker 1: around monitoring and pinpointing where this is all coming from,
Speaker 1: maybe the US specifically, who's leading the charge on this
Speaker 1: in some respects, and what are some of the other
Speaker 1: regions that we assume do have fairly high meeting emissions. Again,
Speaker 1: the uncertainties here are large, but you could see the
Speaker 1: top three countries as being Russia, Tekmenistan, and the US.
Speaker 1: But then when you're looking at the intensity of production,
Speaker 1: production in Tekmenistan volume wise is much lower then that
Speaker 1: of than what's being produced in the United States, for example,
Speaker 1: So that's a particular problem. They are low incentives there
Speaker 1: in terms of tackling the problem. There's a low level
Speaker 1: of transparency in the local fossil fuel sector and that's
Speaker 1: been a big issue. And it also means that when
Speaker 1: we're looking at the global Methan pledge, a lot of
Speaker 1: the impetus then sort of lies with importing countries, so
Speaker 1: places like the EU, but also like East Asia, like China,
Speaker 1: Japan and South Korea. China imports a lot of gas
Speaker 1: from Turkmenistan, so if it joined the Global Meeting Pledge,
Speaker 1: which doesn't look like it's the case now, but who
Speaker 1: knows what could happen over the next few days that
Speaker 1: could put pressure on producers there to clean up their act.
Speaker 1: Just to add anecdotally, I was reading an article that
Speaker 1: came out on Bloomberg News actually the other day that
Speaker 1: talked about Turkmenistan's methane hell of fire crater, which was
Speaker 1: a crater that formed because it had a build up
Speaker 1: of meeting that eventually exploded. And then to solve the problem,
Speaker 1: someone lit it on fire and it has just been burning.
Speaker 1: It has been sort of effectively on fire since one
Speaker 1: which is over a decade ago at least. Explain this
Speaker 1: to me. How setting it on fire solving the problem?
Speaker 1: You know, I I don't know. I don't think they know.
Speaker 1: But it makes for, if nothing else, a good visual
Speaker 1: attraction if you ever find yourself in Turkmenistan. Wow. And
Speaker 1: this is going to burn for some time because once
Speaker 1: it gets started. There are similar things that happen in
Speaker 1: coal basins in the US as well. It's a it's
Speaker 1: a problem, and it's with methane emissions that there's something
Speaker 1: similar as well. When you flare methane, you can burn
Speaker 1: it and it converts it to carbon dioxide. But the
Speaker 1: issues that process is rarely we'll not always entirely efficient,
Speaker 1: and if you have older equipment, then that can mean
Speaker 1: that your efficiency of the flaring process means only about
Speaker 1: the methane of the natural gas is converted to carbon dioxide,
Speaker 1: so you're still leading to it, still seeing large methane
Speaker 1: leakage as a result of those practices. Now, for a
Speaker 1: very short break, stay with us, So can you explain
Speaker 1: what issues are currently being discussed in the United States
Speaker 1: as a part of some of their domestic bills that
Speaker 1: are making their way through the House and the Senate.
Speaker 1: I think the biggest and the brightest star in all
Speaker 1: of this is them talking about a me saying tax
Speaker 1: effectively and it's in the range of about nine hundred
Speaker 1: to a thousand, five hundred dollars per metric ton. And
Speaker 1: we're actually doing some sort of back of the envelope
Speaker 1: analysis on this earlier today, and we found that if
Speaker 1: you take sort of the methane rates assumed or published
Speaker 1: through the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency four leakage along
Speaker 1: production sites, then you're talking about and this tax goes
Speaker 1: into effect, you're talking about a gas producer having sort
Speaker 1: of liability in the millions. But and this is where
Speaker 1: it gets really interesting. If you look at it from
Speaker 1: a sabllite data perspective and talk about, okay, what are
Speaker 1: the actual emissions, assuming that there's some under reporting going on,
Speaker 1: that number gets into the billions. So depending on the
Speaker 1: actual policy, the price that it comes out at, the
Speaker 1: tax that is um and then how they enforce it,
Speaker 1: this could be really game changing for the for the
Speaker 1: U S gas industry. That's exactly right, and there's also
Speaker 1: something to be said for the pressure that already exists
Speaker 1: on US producers, and what we've seen is that again,
Speaker 1: as we've mentioned, accidents of geography mean that US producers
Speaker 1: are particularly exposed to satellites, more so than is the
Speaker 1: case for other producing regions. Also, there's practice for extraction
Speaker 1: in place, like the permanent involved fracking. There's been a
Speaker 1: lot of concerns around the environmental footprint that that involves,
Speaker 1: and that's led to pushback from certain quarters, including governments
Speaker 1: in the so France is one example where the French
Speaker 1: government basically put pressure on energy um and local utility
Speaker 1: to cancel an import detailed deal from next Era the
Speaker 1: US user based on fears around frackings of methane footprints.
Speaker 1: And we've also seen similar moves be made in in Ireland,
Speaker 1: where there's been popular pushback against energ projects. We're also
Speaker 1: seeing the EU try and regularize things, and we're awaiting
Speaker 1: over the course of this year a gas decarbonization package,
Speaker 1: part of which will be basically enacting proposals that were
Speaker 1: made last year around setting up a framework that would
Speaker 1: allow you to look at the methane intensity of different
Speaker 1: sources of natural gas, which could then be tied to
Speaker 1: different types of policy for actually having a bit more
Speaker 1: of a handle on the associate or on the on
Speaker 1: the emissions associated with supply chains and imports into the
Speaker 1: European Union. There's been some discussion as of late, and
Speaker 1: actually this came up as a topic of an entire
Speaker 1: panel at the recent b an F summit in London,
Speaker 1: which took place at the end of October, was around
Speaker 1: engagement versus davis for some of these companies when they're
Speaker 1: thinking about some of their highest emitting parts of their business.
Speaker 1: So for the oil and gas industry, they're methane assets.
Speaker 1: There has been in some circumstances companies that have actually
Speaker 1: sold off these assets to get them off their balance
Speaker 1: sheets so that they appear to be cleaner and greener
Speaker 1: for investors. Now, would the bills that are currently being
Speaker 1: discussed in the US, if we're just going to narrow
Speaker 1: it down to that region, would it address those producers
Speaker 1: that are smaller that maybe seemed to be at this
Speaker 1: point in time somewhat slipping under the radar. Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I think from any perspective, if I was a big
Speaker 1: integrated oil and gas company looking to clean up my
Speaker 1: balance sheet, if you will, by selling off the dirtier assets,
Speaker 1: if there's now a tax liability on some of these assets,
Speaker 1: it would just make it much harder to sell. As
Speaker 1: a private equity backed firm who's on the smaller side,
Speaker 1: I would be left by you to come in and
Speaker 1: purchase that. As you know, it's just not as profitable
Speaker 1: as if I was able to pump out oil and
Speaker 1: gas with no with no repercussion for my emissions. This
Speaker 1: is an area that you know, even we at b
Speaker 1: any of haven't discussed a ton up until I would
Speaker 1: say the last year, And as that's happening, what is
Speaker 1: the most frequently asked questions that you're asked regarding meeting.
Speaker 1: For me, it's a it's a couple of things. The
Speaker 1: first is, if I'm a producer interested in actually reducing emissions,
Speaker 1: how do I go about doing it? You know, what
Speaker 1: are what are the best practices? What is typically or
Speaker 1: at least the best answer, in my opinion is the
Speaker 1: very first step is to actually figure out what is
Speaker 1: going on within your asset base, So to go in
Speaker 1: and actually measure real time continuous emissions monitoring for your
Speaker 1: entire asset base, to know which valves are faulty, which
Speaker 1: compresses a faulty, where it's coming from. If you've plugged
Speaker 1: and abandoned a well, is that well properly plugged? Or
Speaker 1: is methane seeping out of the ground. To truly tackle
Speaker 1: the problem, you need to understand what the the big
Speaker 1: issues are. And then the second question, and I'll let
Speaker 1: Antonine come in after this. Then the second question is
Speaker 1: more around the market for it. I think meat introduction
Speaker 1: has at least up until now, been portrayed as being
Speaker 1: sort of forced onto the industry more stick than carrot,
Speaker 1: if you will. But I think there's a real opportunity here,
Speaker 1: and that is the carrot where if you do reduce
Speaker 1: your emissions, you effectively have a new product, responsibly sourced
Speaker 1: to gas product if you will, then you can use
Speaker 1: to differentiate yourself and sell into a premium market. So
Speaker 1: just questions around when that market might develop, what that
Speaker 1: premium might look like. And you know this is all
Speaker 1: in its nation stages, So I think if you're making
Speaker 1: that bet, you should make it now. Uh, and the
Speaker 1: market will develop. I can't speak to what the prices
Speaker 1: might look like though, And and it's a massive undertaking
Speaker 1: to set up the framework for data collection um to
Speaker 1: actually set up benchmarks that are internationally accepted. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: we kind of had a pivotal moment where these kind
Speaker 1: of benchmarks, this kind of standard setting can make a
Speaker 1: real big difference in the energy transition, and we're seeing
Speaker 1: that because of trade taking an increasingly important role. So
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of initiatives around understanding what we're starting
Speaker 1: to talk about the international trade of hydrogen and then
Speaker 1: how different sources of hydrogen might compare in their carbon intensity.
Speaker 1: We're talking about setting up a carbon border adjustment mechanism
Speaker 1: in the EU that requires us to have a handle
Speaker 1: on the carbon that's embedded in things like steel and
Speaker 1: cement and aluminium, and methane is just one more example.
Speaker 1: And again the EU set up a special observatory to
Speaker 1: basically track to use satellite data and other sources to
Speaker 1: track the emissions associated with different sources, so that you
Speaker 1: can basically have a sort of labeling scheme for a
Speaker 1: cargo of natural gas that gives you an idea of
Speaker 1: how methane intense it was across its value chain. How
Speaker 1: that set is going to be a matter for a
Speaker 1: lot of diplomacy. There's going to be a lot of
Speaker 1: a big lift in terms of making sure the data
Speaker 1: is up to scratch, and it's not going to be simple,
Speaker 1: but moving into areas like this where you can have
Speaker 1: a real impact, it is a lot low hanging fruit
Speaker 1: in terms of the investments required to actually tackle methane
Speaker 1: and the fact a lot of the technologies are already available,
Speaker 1: But it's also tough in terms of setting up internationally
Speaker 1: agreed structures through which to see through this transition. Would
Speaker 1: you say that sentiment regarding producers is generally positive, so
Speaker 1: this could be something that both governments and oil and
Speaker 1: gas companies are an agreement on broadly speaking, I think
Speaker 1: it will take some convincing because you're effectively asking the
Speaker 1: industry to change their current workflow. They're the way they
Speaker 1: go about things that has been maybe in traditional ingrained
Speaker 1: in them for a number of years. But do I
Speaker 1: feel benefits for both the government, the climate and the
Speaker 1: oil and gas company. Yes, absolutely, I think it can
Speaker 1: potentially be a win for all of them, and in
Speaker 1: a way, maybe even prolonged natural gas as life as
Speaker 1: a fuel is part of this energy transition, and in
Speaker 1: addition to that, even work as sort of a stop
Speaker 1: gap solution for climate ambitions before these net sero targets
Speaker 1: really come in and start to squeeze out molecule based
Speaker 1: fuels apart from hydrogen, of course, So it's going to
Speaker 1: take convincing producers that this isn't their economic self interest.
Speaker 1: In a lot of cases, conditions are aligned for that
Speaker 1: to be an argument you can make very convincingly in
Speaker 1: the corporate space outside of the policy space. Where are
Speaker 1: their signs of life in terms of focus and progress
Speaker 1: on me things. So there is a lot of inaction
Speaker 1: and there is a lot of criticism. There are some
Speaker 1: bright spots and one of them is the Oil and
Speaker 1: Gas Methane Pledge, which is a pledge to limit the
Speaker 1: methane intensity of or in gas production below a certain threshold.
Speaker 1: And and that's something that's been signed up to form
Speaker 1: by about sixty plus producers. And is this is this
Speaker 1: a separate pledge that is from the one that you're discussing,
Speaker 1: So pledges, there's a there's a few different pledges and
Speaker 1: a few different avenues, so one for private industry and
Speaker 1: then one for policy makers and governments. Right. But it's
Speaker 1: what's interesting is that this and then the methodology that
Speaker 1: they employ in the reporting practices that they've already been implementing,
Speaker 1: are being taken up by the European Commission, for example,
Speaker 1: which wants to make it the basis for a methane
Speaker 1: observatory that it's setting up. This is all incremental, and
Speaker 1: we've seen progress start from the private sector. We've seen
Speaker 1: it build up. What's promising is that those gains are
Speaker 1: then contributing directly to the creation and of rules and
Speaker 1: of policy that could have a very binding effect. Yeah,
Speaker 1: even on the US side, there are several producers in
Speaker 1: the double digits that have put out mandates for them
Speaker 1: to be transparent and eventually report of the media emissions.
Speaker 1: Along there are a by Jane, and beyond that there
Speaker 1: are a bunch of companies that are doing exactly what
Speaker 1: we discussed earlier and starting a satellite business, sending up
Speaker 1: satellites to effectually verify if if the claims it will
Speaker 1: be made are true. And so I think on the
Speaker 1: data front, there's a lot of progress coming up is
Speaker 1: this significant strides are about to be made and that
Speaker 1: really creates, as I saying earlier, the window of opportunity
Speaker 1: now before that data starts coming in for producers to
Speaker 1: get ahead of the game or even operators pipeline operators
Speaker 1: to to get ahead of the game and start really
Speaker 1: making a difference. Now, how does a pledge like this
Speaker 1: get started In terms of specific genesis, I don't have
Speaker 1: all the details, but it's something that starts not just
Speaker 1: with producers themselves, but also with organizations like the Environmental
Speaker 1: Defense Fund, which is being pretty instrumental to gathering industry
Speaker 1: together and trying to work out how to to shepherd
Speaker 1: them into basically putting their names behind something like the
Speaker 1: orn Gas Mething pledge line mentioned before. It is something
Speaker 1: that's volume treat These are commitments from producers and a
Speaker 1: sign of progress, but at the same time they're also
Speaker 1: the signals that there's real interest from organizations to push
Speaker 1: this process forwards, whether it's pressure from NGOs, whether it's
Speaker 1: efforts to link up industry, like what was happening with
Speaker 1: the Environmental Defense Fund. Yeah, I think on this front,
Speaker 1: most of it was actually pressure through NGOs, the Environmental
Speaker 1: Defense Fund being a great example. UM I remember reading
Speaker 1: articles of journalists actually going out into the Permian with
Speaker 1: handheld infrared cameras and imaging individual plants or or wells
Speaker 1: too to see to photograph these meeta in emissions coming
Speaker 1: out of the ground. And I actually just last week
Speaker 1: I was at a conference where one of the people
Speaker 1: who use data continuation missions monitoring data to help producers
Speaker 1: figure out their meeting and emissions, who showing me photos
Speaker 1: of how did the same equipment can be used to
Speaker 1: track like cow farts at a nearby agricultural facility, or
Speaker 1: even like human farts. See, there was this one image
Speaker 1: of a of a person getting out of a pickup
Speaker 1: truck and as he opened the door, you could just
Speaker 1: see a plume movi me thing coming out that was
Speaker 1: called on the camera. So the technology made a lot
Speaker 1: of advances and like that's a great example of it.
Speaker 1: I love it is that exact, but there's just a
Speaker 1: there's a privacy element here that I don't think I'm
Speaker 1: going to be willing to go from. Yeah, none of
Speaker 1: the satellite platforms we've had access to have given us
Speaker 1: that level of granularity. It is probably a good thing,
Speaker 1: but we know that the technology is They're half fascinating.
Speaker 1: Antoine and Nicole, thank you very much for sharing your
Speaker 1: research on what you've learned about methane monitoring and pledges,
Speaker 1: and we look forward to seeing what progress is made
Speaker 1: in the coming weeks and holy months on this potential
Speaker 1: problem and error and a real opportunity for us to
Speaker 1: reduce emissions in the near term. Thanks Dana, Yeah, thanks
Speaker 1: for having If they know, Today's episode of Switched On
Speaker 1: was edited by Rex Warner of gray Stoke Media. Bloombergin
Speaker 1: e F is a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP
Speaker 1: and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, nor should
Speaker 1: it be construed as investment advice, investment recommendations, or a
Speaker 1: recommendation as to an investment or other strategy Bloomberg an
Speaker 1: e F should not be considered as information sufficient upon
Speaker 1: which to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP
Speaker 1: nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty
Speaker 1: as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained
Speaker 1: in this recording, and any liability as a result of
Speaker 1: this recording. It expressly disclaimed