Speaker 1: Hi Everyone. Earlier this year, Elon Musk put out a
Speaker 1: one hundred million dollar prize for innovation and quote carbon
Speaker 1: negative solutions or pulling c O two straight out of
Speaker 1: the air, but benef carbon capture. Analyst David Madrid says
Speaker 1: Musk is missing the point that what is needed for
Speaker 1: direct air capture is scale, not new technologies. The technologies
Speaker 1: for pulling c O two straight out of the air
Speaker 1: are largely proven, but need larger demonstration products to start
Speaker 1: to bring down the cost of capture, which right now
Speaker 1: is estimated at an eye watering six hundred dollars per
Speaker 1: ton c O two. This week on the show, David
Speaker 1: steps in to tell us about direct air capture and
Speaker 1: how it works, the economics and how they compared to
Speaker 1: capturing c O two from point sources like power plants
Speaker 1: and industrial facilities, and the three hundred billion dollars already
Speaker 1: going into a handful of demonstration projects. Our discussion is
Speaker 1: based on report titled material Tech Highlight Direct Air Capture.
Speaker 1: BEENOF users can get this report on banf dot com,
Speaker 1: the Benf mobile app, and the Bloomberg terminal. As a reminder,
Speaker 1: Beanof does not provide investment or strategy advice and you
Speaker 1: can hear the full disclaimer at the end of the show.
Speaker 1: I'm Mark Taylor and you're listening to Switch Don Benif podcast. David, welcome,
Speaker 1: Thank you. Can you just start it off really basic
Speaker 1: and tell us what direct air capture is. So director
Speaker 1: cuture is a conventional carbon capture technology, but instead of
Speaker 1: capturing the carbon from a point source to general gas
Speaker 1: processing plan or a power plan, it cuptures the uto
Speaker 1: from the atmosphere. So it's basically a removal technology. So
Speaker 1: basically it's a thigulous a mechanical tree. It is. It
Speaker 1: is actually a mechanical tree, but using more an industrial approach.
Speaker 1: So yeah, similar to a three removal technology with the
Speaker 1: main goal of taking C two out of the atmosphere. Okay, cool,
Speaker 1: So can you tell us what it looks like? Is
Speaker 1: it the size of a tree or is the size
Speaker 1: of refrigerator? The size of a house? What are we
Speaker 1: talking here? Yeah, so the size really depends on how
Speaker 1: much you two we are capturing per year. But actually
Speaker 1: we estimated that a conventional director capture plan for capturing
Speaker 1: one million sounds of C two per year that would
Speaker 1: require around two square kilometers maximum. When we compare that
Speaker 1: to a first station, which requires around eight hundred square
Speaker 1: kilometers that's conventional first station, and also bio energy with
Speaker 1: CCS requires around three hundred, so we can see that
Speaker 1: director capital is much lower land requirements. So there were
Speaker 1: pretty much in a in a better position compared to
Speaker 1: other room full technologies. Okay, So the idea is that
Speaker 1: I do not want to deride you know, planting trees,
Speaker 1: but like you can get more c O two sucked
Speaker 1: out of the atmosphere her unit of area than you
Speaker 1: could with a tree. Is that the idea absolutely absolutely
Speaker 1: much more, much more for a given land, you can
Speaker 1: capture much mercy two. We have director capture planted following
Speaker 1: other removal technologies as we said, our first station or
Speaker 1: bio energy with CCS. Okay, So, I mean I think
Speaker 1: I know the answer to this, but like, can you
Speaker 1: tell us why this is popular? I mean, just for
Speaker 1: those who haven't heard of it, maybe it's getting a
Speaker 1: lot of attend to right now in the news and
Speaker 1: as an option for more reducing CEO two. And I
Speaker 1: guess that's the answer. Is there anything else that that
Speaker 1: comes to mind? It's popular mainly because companies are looking
Speaker 1: for removal technologies. Right, So it is pretty much known
Speaker 1: that we will need some kind of removal technologies in
Speaker 1: the future to actually get to one point five. So
Speaker 1: companies are looking to direct air capture in order to
Speaker 1: remove their emissions. And also we are in a point
Speaker 1: in where companies such as Microsoft not only want to
Speaker 1: offset their current emissions but also the tons of SEO
Speaker 1: two that they emitted in the past. So you can
Speaker 1: only do that through removal technologies, and there is where
Speaker 1: directed capture can also play a big role. And also
Speaker 1: it is true that there are other industries that are
Speaker 1: really hard to the carbonize, such as cement or still
Speaker 1: and there we will need some kind of removal technologies
Speaker 1: to offset the last remaining emissions that we will have
Speaker 1: in the future because some of the CEO two emissions,
Speaker 1: well a lot of CEO two emissions from cement production
Speaker 1: is actually process emissions that comes from the rock itself,
Speaker 1: right exactly, exactly, Okay, okay, cool? Just to clarify, you know,
Speaker 1: can you just clarify for people one point five degrees
Speaker 1: in order to get to a worlding where the warming
Speaker 1: gets to one point five and not warmer, it is
Speaker 1: pretty sure and that we will need some kind of
Speaker 1: remote technology, so we'll need trace of for a station
Speaker 1: bio or two with CCS minoritization an the director capture
Speaker 1: in order to take out emissions that are already in
Speaker 1: the atmosphere. So we need to take out tones of
Speaker 1: c or two from the atmosphere because carbon dioxide is
Speaker 1: the main greenhouse. Cassett causes global warming. So now that
Speaker 1: we've established that, you know, it can be a really
Speaker 1: great you know way to pulse CEO two out of
Speaker 1: the air. Can you tell us a bit about how that,
Speaker 1: how it does that? How does it pull CO two
Speaker 1: out of the air? Director cup There is pretty much
Speaker 1: normal CCUS plan, but in set of character in CU
Speaker 1: two from a point source it takes out from the
Speaker 1: atmosphere right, so that there are main difference there such
Speaker 1: as for example, in a director capture plan we need
Speaker 1: the super large contactor a rise with funds that draw
Speaker 1: CU two into the collectors right, and there is where
Speaker 1: all the chemical process happens. But just for for us
Speaker 1: to understand when we talk about the director culture plan
Speaker 1: is pretty much similar to conventional c c US facility
Speaker 1: that is located in a power plant for example, and
Speaker 1: this technology has been around four decades, right, But the
Speaker 1: main difference is the cost. So the cost in the
Speaker 1: points is much lower than taking CU two out of
Speaker 1: the atmosphere, and that is basically because the concentration of
Speaker 1: C two in the atmosphere is much lower four hundred
Speaker 1: parts permilion when we compare that to point sources where
Speaker 1: the concentration is super high. It depends on the point source,
Speaker 1: of course. But then if we get to the low
Speaker 1: hanging fruit fertilizer plants, ethanol plants there, the cost of
Speaker 1: culturing is pretty much very cheap compared to two current
Speaker 1: US the direct air cauntor that we estimate to be
Speaker 1: around six hundred dollars per ton. But again there are
Speaker 1: different technologies there, and the proposed that they're used for
Speaker 1: is also different. We need to deploy conventional CCUS plans
Speaker 1: in those assets that we really wanted to carbonize and
Speaker 1: then use direct air caunitor for this really hard to
Speaker 1: carbonizing industries on to offset the last remaining emissions, taking
Speaker 1: advantage of high cost but super high modularity, easy to
Speaker 1: deploy technology, But how does it work? Like so specifically,
Speaker 1: can you tell us about you know in the note
Speaker 1: that you wrote there are basically two main methods of
Speaker 1: capturing c U two. Is that correct? That's correct? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's correct. Can you describe those? There are two different
Speaker 1: technologies that are used nowadays, one that is absorption and
Speaker 1: the other that this absorption that this would be difficult
Speaker 1: to pronounce, but the main difference in these technologies is
Speaker 1: how the chemistry works there. So absorption is a volume phenomenon,
Speaker 1: while adsorption is a surface phenomenon. So in absorption, the
Speaker 1: C two gets dissolved in the solvent, while in adsorption,
Speaker 1: being the two are touched in the surface. We need
Speaker 1: more surface for for the same volume of CU two
Speaker 1: to get captured at the end. Okay, so let's let's
Speaker 1: let's break that down really quick. So adsorption solid sponge,
Speaker 1: let's let's think of it, correct, and absorption dissolved liquid.
Speaker 1: Does that work? Yeah, that's how it works? Okay, cool?
Speaker 1: And so those are two main methods of doing it.
Speaker 1: So can you describe some of the advantages and disadvantages
Speaker 1: of each type of technology? The main difference is the
Speaker 1: temperator that the plan needs in order to regenerate the sorvent.
Speaker 1: So when we talk about liquid solvents, the temperator that
Speaker 1: is needed is around nine hundred degrees celsius. And on
Speaker 1: the other hand, for solid absorption, the temperator that is
Speaker 1: needed is around a hundred degrees celsius. So the difference
Speaker 1: there is much lower. And that's why in a liquid
Speaker 1: solvent plan that i'm plats are much higher. Wheels need
Speaker 1: much higher thermal energy to regenerate the sorbent. Okay, so
Speaker 1: just to clarify, regenerate the solvent means you fill up
Speaker 1: the filter or the the sorbent and then you need
Speaker 1: to get the CEO two out so you can use
Speaker 1: the filter or the sponge or the liquid again. Right
Speaker 1: to me, it sounds like a no brainer. What am
Speaker 1: I missing that you know you have the nine hundred
Speaker 1: c regeneration temperature. That sounds like a deal breaker to me,
Speaker 1: and you would go with the one that has a
Speaker 1: lower temperature. Why is their choice? Like? What makes this
Speaker 1: liquid sorvent good? That's a really good point, and there
Speaker 1: are many things that affect the overall cost. But when
Speaker 1: we compare solid absorption to liquid absorption, it's not only
Speaker 1: the temperator that makes a difference, but also the materials
Speaker 1: that we are using on the sorbent that is being used.
Speaker 1: So the serving is a big part of the gass.
Speaker 1: And of course companies that are working with solvents use
Speaker 1: different type of sorbents and companies that are working in
Speaker 1: absorption or to use different types of materials on servants.
Speaker 1: So there's a key difference there in the materials that
Speaker 1: are used to power on, to captor to tow the end.
Speaker 1: Forgive me from my terminology, but I keep coming back
Speaker 1: to the sponge and the liquid, right, But so you
Speaker 1: could you could say that the sponge is more expensive
Speaker 1: two produce and consume, I guess, and the liquid is cheaper,
Speaker 1: but the regeneration is more expensive. Is that right? Exactly?
Speaker 1: That's the difference that we are seeing companies doing, and
Speaker 1: that's that's what the industry is doing at the moment.
Speaker 1: You also, there is a lot of demonstration in order
Speaker 1: to try to reduce the total cost the industritionarily stage,
Speaker 1: so it needs to get two economies of scale, get
Speaker 1: the specialized supply chain, demonstrate new servants. But that you're right,
Speaker 1: You're right, that's the main technology technology differences. Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: I think we got it roughly. Now, can you tell
Speaker 1: us what the costs are you know, can you give
Speaker 1: us a ballpark estimate of how expensive this st first
Speaker 1: to do, just to give a starting point, current cost
Speaker 1: of Hunter are around six hundred dollars per ton of
Speaker 1: C two, so very very expensive when we compare it
Speaker 1: out to other remote technologies. But then again, as we
Speaker 1: were saying, the technologies in super early stages, companies are
Speaker 1: finalizing their pilot plants and trying to scale their technology.
Speaker 1: So the cost is six hundred now, but it kind
Speaker 1: of declined, and it really decline. US technology scales more
Speaker 1: planted commission on build economies of a scalar, realized industries
Speaker 1: get specialized supply chains. And also these companies learn from
Speaker 1: operating these facilities, right, so they can reduce the cost
Speaker 1: of operating and the opex overall would be reduced. And
Speaker 1: we thought the industry beliefs that we can get to
Speaker 1: point of around two hundred and fifty dollars per ton
Speaker 1: of cutuo pupture by twenty thirty and then around a
Speaker 1: hundred dollars per ton of C two by twenty fifty. Right,
Speaker 1: so current studies that are released by the company's working
Speaker 1: in director counter estimate taught in and of a kind cost,
Speaker 1: we could get two points around a hundred dollars per
Speaker 1: ton of C two counterct man. Okay, this is fascinating.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna we're gonna go on a journey here
Speaker 1: of talking about this cost and what it actually means.
Speaker 1: So in the US, you know, correct me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: but there's a tax credit I believe called forty five
Speaker 1: Q where a company can get a tax credit for
Speaker 1: injecting CEO two into the ground of what is it now,
Speaker 1: forty five dollars a ton? I want to you actually
Speaker 1: get fifty if you started on thirty five. You're using
Speaker 1: foreign hans recovery. Okay, cool, So we're hearing that that is,
Speaker 1: you know, at least bordering on commercially viable at this point,
Speaker 1: is that right? That's therrect So point source. You get
Speaker 1: to a point where the cost of cultury is lower
Speaker 1: than fifty, then yeah, you can make it a business
Speaker 1: case out of eats. Okay. So we're at six dollars
Speaker 1: a ton, now three hundred dollars a ton in ten years,
Speaker 1: eight years, and then the end of a kind at
Speaker 1: a hundred okay, So even that doesn't quite compete with
Speaker 1: what you're telling me. Right now for point source capture.
Speaker 1: But what I would take from that is that this
Speaker 1: is you know, personal opinion. I guess that it just
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, right because my assumption here is that direct
Speaker 1: or capture we will mostly be important for companies that
Speaker 1: want to offset emissions and this might be the only
Speaker 1: option they have to do it. I don't know, is
Speaker 1: that right? That's right? Just when comparing a conventional CCUS plan,
Speaker 1: if we are actually covering of the CEO two that
Speaker 1: is released in these point source plants, it's a power
Speaker 1: plant for example, there is the other attemplature scent, these
Speaker 1: tem per cent of emissions also need to be offset
Speaker 1: at some point, right, so when we deploy all the technologies,
Speaker 1: there would be emissions that we need to be removed.
Speaker 1: And that's for a direct our company role. And also
Speaker 1: you're absolutely right when we compare it costs of point
Speaker 1: source to direct air capture, it is through the director
Speaker 1: clupure is much more expensive. But we are seeing pathways
Speaker 1: where director capture come be valuable for companies to follow
Speaker 1: instead of paying the taxes super high current taxes expected
Speaker 1: for example in Canada or Norway. Cool okay, So it
Speaker 1: sounds like an option of several over time, and it
Speaker 1: sounds like it also could be kind of like equated
Speaker 1: to the last mile for deliveries, right like your last
Speaker 1: ton of c O two to squeeze out in your
Speaker 1: in your offsets exactly exactly. So how much is this
Speaker 1: actually being used? We know it's early stage, but just
Speaker 1: how early stage? Right now? How many tons of c
Speaker 1: O two are currently being removed from the atmosphere via
Speaker 1: direct air capture? Estimates say that a bit more than
Speaker 1: six thousand tons of two can be captured per year
Speaker 1: using direct air capture facilities already commission so that's super low.
Speaker 1: That's very early stage. But we are seeing how the
Speaker 1: industry is making progress. Companies are expected to commission larger
Speaker 1: scale plans, so we're really seeing a change there. For example,
Speaker 1: there will be a plan to will big emission this
Speaker 1: year that we'll have a capacity of four thousand tons
Speaker 1: of C two rights. So if we compare that to
Speaker 1: the overall deployed capocity, that's already a significant a bondsman,
Speaker 1: so there is significant progress there. What it is through
Speaker 1: that we are in early stages of development of the technologies.
Speaker 1: Pilot plants have been built on the largest scale plants
Speaker 1: or plan to be built in the near future. Okay,
Speaker 1: so just to recap super early stage, super expensive, but
Speaker 1: could play a really important role in in taking C
Speaker 1: or two out of the air in the future. When
Speaker 1: we come back, we're going to talk about those pilot projects,
Speaker 1: what's being done, who are the main players, and how
Speaker 1: they're hoping to scale. Stay with us, so let's talk
Speaker 1: about who's doing what can you tell us who the
Speaker 1: main players are in direct air capture? There are mainly
Speaker 1: three big players in the direct hair cutter space and
Speaker 1: taking all their fundings together to put that into perspective,
Speaker 1: they have raced more than three hundred millions right, and
Speaker 1: these three main players are first Carbon Engineering, second climb
Speaker 1: Works and third Global Thermostat are the all US companies.
Speaker 1: Global Thermal Stati is the US company, Current Engineering is
Speaker 1: from Canada and Climworks is actually Swiss company. And what
Speaker 1: are they doing? So? What technology has they chosen? What
Speaker 1: is their status report? So Current Engineering is following the
Speaker 1: liquid absorption technology that we were talking about before, and
Speaker 1: climb Works and Global Thermal stack the solid absorption pathway
Speaker 1: and they also have pretty much different plans to scale
Speaker 1: their technology to put that into a current view of
Speaker 1: the industry. Climb Works is the company that we commissioned
Speaker 1: the four thousand tons per year facility this year, but
Speaker 1: then Carbon Engineering plans to commission a one million tons
Speaker 1: per year facility by four that's two hundred fifty times
Speaker 1: larger than the current largest back facility that will be
Speaker 1: commissioned by Client Works. So there is massive progress in
Speaker 1: the industry there, Uh, skeptical. So I don't know for
Speaker 1: those listening, Like I think I mentioned this several times before,
Speaker 1: but I used to be a CCS or carbon capture
Speaker 1: and storage analysts ten years ago, and there's all these
Speaker 1: announcements about projects, you know, big projects that were coming online,
Speaker 1: and you know, big pilots as well. You know, company
Speaker 1: would say we're gonna build three of these, We're gonna
Speaker 1: build four of these, and I would always just say, well,
Speaker 1: show me one. And that resulted in us putting together
Speaker 1: this thing we called the race to first, you know,
Speaker 1: who was going to actually build the first commercial scale
Speaker 1: UM or large scale CCS project and we would track
Speaker 1: and detail the progress of each project. So can you
Speaker 1: tell me? You know, there's a big difference between a
Speaker 1: company saying they're going to get a pilot project or
Speaker 1: a commercial scale demo done and actually doing it. So
Speaker 1: can you tell us about how far along they are
Speaker 1: or is that known or not? Yeah? So, for example,
Speaker 1: for the facility that Climbers will build this year is
Speaker 1: pretty much in super advanced stage, so alright, alright, cool,
Speaker 1: only finished in Iceland, so that's looking great. Of course,
Speaker 1: looking at twenty twenty four, which is the year when
Speaker 1: Current Engineering expects the commission there one million ton per
Speaker 1: year facility, it's more uncertain there. But it is true
Speaker 1: that these companies are bagged by super large oil corporations.
Speaker 1: For example, oxy is partnering with Curbon Engineering, right Excellent
Speaker 1: is going with global thermal style, so there is really
Speaker 1: bugged there on now, Director Canter lives like the main
Speaker 1: part of the carbonization solutions for large oil corporations. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's come back to that, but let's talk about the
Speaker 1: pilot's really quick and fine. I'm sold. It sounds it
Speaker 1: sounds promising. So the one clear question in my mind
Speaker 1: is is okay, so why Iceland right for a for
Speaker 1: a demo for direct air capture. The good thing about
Speaker 1: the facility that climb Rooks is building in Iceland is
Speaker 1: that it is taking advantage that is located next to
Speaker 1: a thermal power plan, So basically it's taking the heats
Speaker 1: and electricity produced by the gil tormal plan to power
Speaker 1: the process. So all the energy requirements are coming from
Speaker 1: the gil term power plant. Plus, Plant Works is also
Speaker 1: partnering with card Fix, which is a company that mineralizes
Speaker 1: the U two, So in this facility, the c O
Speaker 1: two is basically mineralized on a story in the long term.
Speaker 1: So there's two advantages that are the first that the
Speaker 1: facility is located to thermal power plant and the second
Speaker 1: is that the C two is stored through minoralization. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna nerd out for a second that that's
Speaker 1: really cool. So, like everybody listening, I'm sorry, I used
Speaker 1: to be a geothermal analyst who ten years ago, and
Speaker 1: I've been to this plant, the Hellociety plant in Iceland,
Speaker 1: and and if anybody's interested, they have a really cool
Speaker 1: visitor center you can go check it out, you know,
Speaker 1: and have a look. But what's really cool is that
Speaker 1: this project kind of a I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: a dark secret, but whatever. A thing about geothermal is
Speaker 1: that there's there's c O two in the ground and
Speaker 1: sometimes when you pull up the water while c O
Speaker 1: two is going to come out too. And so one
Speaker 1: of the justifications I think for this plant was that
Speaker 1: it can help capture some of the CEO two that's
Speaker 1: admitted by the geothermal activity or the geothermal production and
Speaker 1: therefore making this plant even more environmentally friendly, which is
Speaker 1: really cool. And Iceland has a unique well unique chemistry
Speaker 1: that can fix the CEO two in the rocks below,
Speaker 1: unlike you know, other locations where it would just be stored,
Speaker 1: so it'll instantly mineralized. And it's really just a pretty
Speaker 1: cool thing. I question the you know, the ability to
Speaker 1: scale this out much much further in Iceland, you know,
Speaker 1: being so so small, but it's a super interesting choice
Speaker 1: for a pilot project. It is to scale this up
Speaker 1: to tons per year. Oh wow, Okay, that's really cool.
Speaker 1: That's really cool, and that seems to be the challenge, right.
Speaker 1: So from your note you said that the technology has
Speaker 1: basically proven, but the challenge is scaling it up, is
Speaker 1: that right? And getting the cost down. Can you talk
Speaker 1: about what companies are doing to try to jump this
Speaker 1: hurdle of of scale up. Companies are following different approaches, right,
Speaker 1: So for example, climb Works is the company that has
Speaker 1: commissioned more plants, but they are all super small scale.
Speaker 1: But then taking advantage of ducts moderority, climb Works is
Speaker 1: following different paths there. So for example, they are doing
Speaker 1: a project in Norway to produce liquid fields. So taking
Speaker 1: the sitoo that has been captured and partnering with Sunfire
Speaker 1: and others, they are planning to produce liquid fields. Then
Speaker 1: they are building the facility in Iceland which is actually
Speaker 1: storing through minioralization the sudwo that has been captured, then
Speaker 1: moving on to blow a thermostat. They are providing the
Speaker 1: sutwo for carbonated rings and then moving on to oxy.
Speaker 1: What oxy is sorry one oxygen current engineering moving onto
Speaker 1: carbon engineering. What current Engineering is doing at the moment
Speaker 1: is partnering with oxy to provide them with you two
Speaker 1: that will be used for enhanter recovery operations. So there
Speaker 1: are really different approaches there, all of them taking advantage
Speaker 1: of the moderity that director capture provides. So I was
Speaker 1: they about this morning right that when you talked about
Speaker 1: the well the enhancesful recovery. You know you're capturing steal
Speaker 1: two to pull up more oil. That sounds like a
Speaker 1: you know, kind of a paradox, I guess. And then
Speaker 1: I think in the note you also mentioned that to
Speaker 1: get the heat required to regenerate the liquid sorbi, and
Speaker 1: they were burning natural gas. Right. To me, the comparison
Speaker 1: that I made in my head was that, Okay, that's
Speaker 1: like getting an electric vehicle but charging it with a
Speaker 1: diesel generator in your back garden. So it's kind of like,
Speaker 1: you know, mixing your your goals here. I think I
Speaker 1: came to terms with it that it helps these companies
Speaker 1: get to scale and come down the cost curve. Right,
Speaker 1: It's a means to an end. Is that how you're
Speaker 1: seeing it as well? Exactly? I think that's how we
Speaker 1: have to see at this point. You're you're absolutely right,
Speaker 1: just burning natural gas. I mean what comment engineering sting
Speaker 1: is the missions that are released from burning the natural
Speaker 1: gas are also captured, right, So look looking at the
Speaker 1: whole solution. It is actually the one million twentyes C
Speaker 1: two that is being removed from the atmosphere, right, and
Speaker 1: then there is the C two that is also a
Speaker 1: capture that comes from burning the natural gas. And you're right,
Speaker 1: I would say that foreign haunter recovery purposes. This is
Speaker 1: helpful now to help it to a scale drive town cost,
Speaker 1: but in the longer term we will need director capture
Speaker 1: for a propose that the main goal is to remove
Speaker 1: emissions from the atmosphere, not to keep pumping more oil
Speaker 1: cool Okay, that makes sense. And so who who are
Speaker 1: the main drivers behind this? Like right, so it's a
Speaker 1: there's startups, you know that they're that are involved in
Speaker 1: doing it, But who are the drivers that are saying
Speaker 1: they want to buy it? You know that they want
Speaker 1: to that are interested in besides those that are looking
Speaker 1: to use the downstream CU two. There is the big
Speaker 1: thing the offset offsetting there, right, So we are seeing
Speaker 1: companies that are really interested in directory capture because of
Speaker 1: the offsetting potential. So companies that not only want to
Speaker 1: remove the missions that they are currently releasing in a
Speaker 1: per year basis, but also they want to remove emission
Speaker 1: is that they've released in the past, such as the
Speaker 1: case of Microsoft for example. So Microsoft Microsoft is investing
Speaker 1: in client works as part of the twenty thirty portfolio
Speaker 1: for removal technologies. So there is really the focus of
Speaker 1: companies that really want to offset their emissions in a
Speaker 1: easy to monitor way and verifiable way that are looking
Speaker 1: into director capture. That's cool. Are we seeing others besides
Speaker 1: Microsoft that they're jumping in this early and there are
Speaker 1: other other there online web pages that are partnering with
Speaker 1: climb Works on current engineering as well. So there are
Speaker 1: there are companies that are interested in these director capital approaches,
Speaker 1: but the biggest announcement probably was the one from Microsoft
Speaker 1: towards climb Works. Okay, so a couple more questions. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about what the future looks like if this goes right,
Speaker 1: It would seem to me that you would want to
Speaker 1: put these facilities in places that are really close to
Speaker 1: storage locations. Is that right? Is that what we're starting
Speaker 1: to see, you know, besides enhancebul recovery, you put it
Speaker 1: in places where you can inject this year two? Is
Speaker 1: that correct? That that's correct? For example, in the facility
Speaker 1: that climb Works is building next to the to the
Speaker 1: storage site, but also the one that they are building
Speaker 1: for equid fields production next to the facility that will
Speaker 1: produce the liquid fields, so we don't have the transport
Speaker 1: cost there, right, Okay? Cool? And so like we can
Speaker 1: start to predict like where these facilities might be. And
Speaker 1: and it sounds from what you're saying, they could be
Speaker 1: modular too, so they could just make them bigger and
Speaker 1: bigger and bigger as you go. Is that right, that's right,
Speaker 1: that's right then that that's what we're seeing from companies.
Speaker 1: So all these companies, they say that their technology is
Speaker 1: very very modular, so scaling their facilities is relatively easy.
Speaker 1: Scaling their capacity is easy because they just need to
Speaker 1: build more modulus and place then next to each other.
Speaker 1: So you could basically deploy your director PUD director capital
Speaker 1: plan where you want and also scale as you want
Speaker 1: as well. And I guess on one more thing on location,
Speaker 1: where's China and all this At the moment, there are
Speaker 1: no really big main players working on director capital in China,
Speaker 1: but of course that the focus that they industry with
Speaker 1: Leo Cats, and I'm sure that this will be the
Speaker 1: point that we will hear a lot talk about in
Speaker 1: the future. That's one way you could come down the
Speaker 1: cars curve, right, is that China jumps in and starts
Speaker 1: building building these things like crazy. Absolutely. Absolutely. The main
Speaker 1: thing there as well is just taking taking advantage of
Speaker 1: the incentives available. Right. The companies don't see incentives in China,
Speaker 1: then they go to the US, for example, to take
Speaker 1: advantage of the forty five Q which is what we
Speaker 1: mentioned or the low current field standard to produce lou
Speaker 1: good fields for example. Is there government support anywhere besides
Speaker 1: the forty five tax credit? When CCS was making a
Speaker 1: lot of headlines, you know, a decade ago, there was
Speaker 1: billions in government support for pilot projects. Is that looking
Speaker 1: to be the case here as well? There has been
Speaker 1: government funding in the UK for example, in the US
Speaker 1: as well for the deployment of director capital technologies raised
Speaker 1: Also of these hundred million you have fun or challenge
Speaker 1: that Ellen Mask has done, which is kind of massive
Speaker 1: as well, But these companies have raised significant funding, right
Speaker 1: so what they need at the moment is a large
Speaker 1: amount of money talking the order billions to scale their technology. Okay,
Speaker 1: so it doesn't seem like there's a huge money from
Speaker 1: government's going into pilots or demo projects. But can you
Speaker 1: also describe this. Is it a prize from from Elan
Speaker 1: Mask or what is that? That is actually a price
Speaker 1: from Milan Mask that was announced this year, but that's
Speaker 1: for different remobile technologies. But it will be very cool
Speaker 1: in order to see the role that direct hair capitual
Speaker 1: places there, because other removable technologies can play role through
Speaker 1: ocean in oritization, etcetera. So it's not only focused on
Speaker 1: direct hair capitual, but it will be cool to see
Speaker 1: the role THATTTAG place given how much focused on how
Speaker 1: much attention the industry currently has one final question, so
Speaker 1: what is the what is the next step in our
Speaker 1: research in this in this area? Are we gonna keep
Speaker 1: going with direct air capture? Is there? Do you have
Speaker 1: a pipeline research that your questions you want to look
Speaker 1: at or what what are we seeing? I personally think
Speaker 1: that the next thing to look at is to see
Speaker 1: the progress that these companies are doing in their announcements,
Speaker 1: so really seeing whether this plant are being commissioned, construction
Speaker 1: has it started. How the utilization market evolves as well, right,
Speaker 1: so climb walks for example, that is doing the fields facility.
Speaker 1: How all these markets that are focused in utilization and
Speaker 1: that can bring new revenue streams evolved, So that's a
Speaker 1: big part. And also making progress on driving down the
Speaker 1: cost learning from operating the facilities driving down capex as well.
Speaker 1: So the focus is really understanding how we can drive
Speaker 1: down cost and then understanding the role that the instigization
Speaker 1: market will have in the overall deployment of Director Cutter. David,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining. Thank you Mark. This week's show was
Speaker 1: produced by Ava gonzalezi Isla and edited by Rex Horner
Speaker 1: of Grace Took Media. Bloomberginniac is a service provided by
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Finance LP and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute,
Speaker 1: nor should it be construed, as investment advice, investment recommendation,
Speaker 1: or recommendation as to human investment or other strategy. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Aniac should not be considered as information sufficient upon which
Speaker 1: it makes an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance Lp nor
Speaker 1: any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty unders
Speaker 1: the accuracy or completess of the information contained in this
Speaker 1: recording at any liability as a result of this recording
Speaker 1: that expresses