articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/210422-the-hydrogen-economy-can-natural-gas-and-h2-have-a-symbiotic-relationship-11911512 content esgSubNav
Log in to other products

 /


Looking for more?

In This List
COMMENTS

The Hydrogen Economy: Can Natural Gas And H2 Have A Symbiotic Relationship?

NEWS

S&P Global Ratings Webinar: How Are California's Wildfire Risks Affecting Utility Credit Quality?

COMMENTS

Global Actions On Corporations, Sovereigns, International Public Finance, And Project Finance To Date In 2021

COMMENTS

COVID-19 Heat Map: Pent-Up Demand And Supply Shortages Further Improve Recovery Prospects For Credit Quality

COMMENTS

For Investor-Owned Utilities, Winter Storm Uri Hasn't Yet Affected Our View Of Texas' Regulatory Framework


The Hydrogen Economy: Can Natural Gas And H2 Have A Symbiotic Relationship?

(Editor's Note: This article is part of a series following "How Hydrogen Can Fuel The Energy Transition," published Nov. 19, 2020.)

S&P Global Ratings is often asked whether hydrogen should be perceived as a threat or opportunity for companies in the hydrocarbon fuel chain. And, equally, if natural gas has a role to play in hydrogen's inevitable growth. The answer obviously depends on who you ask but, more importantly, one's time horizon, the pace of regulatory change, and level of carbon taxation or subsidies to make hydrogen economic.

Specifically, in addition to major infrastructure development such as hydrogen pipeline grids and use of hydrogen in new fuel cell or power generation applications, production costs need to roughly halve for commercial viability. Meanwhile, carbon taxes on competing fuels will likely need to increase (see "How Hydrogen Can Fuel The Energy Transition," published Nov. 19, 2020, on RatingsDirect).

Through Blue Hydrogen, Natural Gas Can Be Part Of The Hydrogen Economy

Currently, natural gas accounts for 75% of hydrogen produced globally, while hydrogen production accounts for 6% of natural gas supply, according to the International Energy Agency. Depending on availability and pricing, natural gas typically accounts for 60%-80% of grey and blue hydrogen production costs. With greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulation expected to tighten globally, it is likely gas producers in the U.S. and Europe could take different paths.

The EU's decarbonization strategy mostly excludes natural gas (used for blue hydrogen production) and largely focuses on green hydrogen (produced through electrolysis fueled by renewable electricity). In the U.S., we believe blue will be the hydrogen choice for oil and gas companies over the coming decade given its lower operational and capital costs. Indeed, these companies own the raw material used in blue hydrogen production. They also have the know-how, scalability, and skills for gas transport/compression, and large-scale capital project management.

Moreover, depending on regional proximity, U.S. oil and gas producers have the advantage of carbon storage, which is partially subsidized through a tax credit that targets carbon capture and injection for carbon-dioxide (CO2)-enhanced oil recovery and long-term sequestration. The abundance of accessible natural gas reserves and extensive existing pipeline infrastructure offer clear advantages for blue hydrogen use.

Currently, transportation and storage costs are not significant concerns for grey hydrogen (where CO2 is not captured), since 85% of hydrogen is produced and consumed on-site using this method (according to the International Energy Agency; 2019). However, carbon capture technology provides the possibility to ship liquefied CO2 to depleted reservoirs, produce blue hydrogen near gas fields and transport it via pipelines, or convert and transport it as ammonia.

Other regions with potential long-term carbon capture opportunities and low production costs where natural gas reserves are plentiful include the Middle East and Russia. In contrast, countries in Asia and Europe may exhibit higher production costs, undermining the competitiveness of (blue) hydrogen.

Oil And Gas Majors Face Tough Choices

Amid increased pressure from investors and regulators on GHG emissions, oil and gas companies throughout the hydrocarbon value chain are facing difficult strategic decisions in their business models.

Large oil and gas companies have been exploring and testing hydrogen technology for at least 20 years. Notably in Europe, where the regulatory environment is more supportive of green hydrogen, pilot projects benefit from government subsidies that may account for 40%-50% of capital costs.

In turn, European majors have various strategies and projects involving green hydrogen:

  • BP PLC, for instance, aims to capture a higher share of the hydrogen market. The company has a project that produces and exports green ammonia from Australia, which it could expand to 1 million tons per year (1.5 gigawatt [GW] capacity). It is also partnering with Orsted with a longer-term ambition to build more than 500 megawatts (MW) of ‎renewable-powered electrolysis capacity at its German refinery.
  • Equinor ASA, one of the most active companies in blue hydrogen and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, has teamed up with Shell and Total for the largest carbon transportation and storage project to date. Northern Lights has Phase 1 capacity of 1.5 million tons of CO2 per year. The project includes capture and storage of CO2 from industrial sites near Oslo and shipping of liquid CO2 from these sites to an onshore terminal on Norway's west coast. From there, the liquified CO2 will be transported via pipeline to an offshore permanent storage location in the North Sea. Equinor is also considering a final investment decision on the Hydrogen to Humber (H2H) Saltend project in the U.K., which could be the world's first decarbonized industrial cluster, supplying hydrogen to a nearby chemical plant and power station.
  • Royal Dutch Shell PLC and a consortium of investors are leading NortH2--the largest green hydrogen project announced to date. The project aims to produce 800,000 tons of green hydrogen using a 10 GW offshore wind farm in the North Sea.
  • Total SE's CEO recently expressed interest in the company becoming a large producer of green hydrogen. It signed a cooperation agreement with Engie to develop green hydrogen for its refinery in southern France, powered by over 100 MW of solar plants.

In the U.S., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. are not as far into the hydrogen story as their European peers, but have taken a different path to address GHG emissions.

  • Exxon, at its recent earnings call, announced a strategy to reduce upstream GHG emissions 30% by 2025; including methane and flaring 40%-50%. This will come primarily through its focus on expanding the use of CCS technology. Indeed, it recently announced it wants to construct a $100 billion CCS facility along the Houston Ship Channel to capture carbon emissions from refineries and petrochemical plants.
  • Chevron is also investing in CCS technology while discussing potential hydrogen and renewable-type projects to add to its framework.

With rising acceptance of hydrogen, pipeline companies may have to rethink their strategies of solely distributing hydrocarbons. The U.S. has massive pipeline and storage infrastructure that could be utilized to ship hydrogen directly to power stations or industrial users. Indeed, the U.S. Gulf Coast, with its infrastructure and storage capabilities, proximity to shipping ports and gas producing fields, access to pipelines, and abundance of chemical plants, could be slated to become the blue hydrogen hub.

Nevertheless, there are significant logistical challenges. To ship hydrogen through existing pipelines in the U.S. or Europe, it must be blended with natural gas at a maximum proportion of 15% to prevent corrosion--a mix that may not be usable for certain industrial players. The alternative of installing extensive and expensive pure hydrogen pipelines could jeopardize many midstream balance sheets.

Natural Gas Won't Lose Out To Cleaner Hydrogen Just Yet

The biggest credit risk for oil and gas players is ultimately the substitution of hydrocarbons with alternative fuels, including green hydrogen, while blue hydrogen growth would mitigate risks for gas producers. We believe blue hydrogen demand and its effect on natural gas demand will be muted since natural gas will remain the primary feedstock in existing applications and industrial processes. However, longer-term prospects for natural gas demand are less certain.

We expect green hydrogen will likely become a larger part of the energy lexicon as operating and capital costs reduce. This could mean it begins to capture market share in many areas currently dominated by natural gas, but we believe any meaningful change will not occur until after 2030. Indeed, the Sustainable Development Scenario of the World Energy Outlook forecasts that 67% of electricity supply will come from renewables by 2040, with wind and solar accounting for the majority. Also, higher natural gas costs in Asia and Europe may prove a catalyst for companies converting to green hydrogen.

Based on this, we believe the key long-term questions for oil and gas producers include:

  • Will natural gas still be needed in the power mix post 2040? Many market forecasts show gas will need to account for 20% of the future decarbonized power mix. Material volumes of clean hydrogen with capacity for power storage could provide an alternative and address the intermittency of wind and solar electricity generation. This would imply the role of gas as a bridge fuel in the energy transition could be shorter-lived than previously expected.
  • Will oil products remain the dominant fuel for transportation? Clearly the near-term impact will come from batteries and electric vehicles, but hydrogen could also play a bigger role post 2030--first by offering carbon-free fuel cell solutions for heavy-trucks and commercial transport, and possibly for shipping or even aviation in the long term.

Total's September 2020 strategic outlook still points to a steady rise in natural gas demand but an inevitable need for cleaner gas, with green and blue hydrogen part of the equation (see chart). Nonetheless, in Total's Rupture Case, in which environmental factors have a strong effect on demand patterns and the industry, blue and green hydrogen have less of a contribution to the energy mix than natural gas offset by CCS.

image

Based on these forecasts, we believe oil and gas players will have a complex relationship with blue and green hydrogen as the energy transition intensifies. Varying market realities and regulation could mean different hydrogen types are prioritized in the U.S. and Europe, while wider questions remain as to hydrogen's adoption and role in the energy mix. Clearly though, it will be those who take the necessary steps today that could reap the potential benefits in the hydrogen economy of the future.

Editor: Robert Anderson.

Related Research

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analysts:Simon Redmond, London + 44 20 7176 3683;
simon.redmond@spglobal.com
Thomas A Watters, New York + 1 (212) 438 7818;
thomas.watters@spglobal.com
Secondary Contacts:Massimo Schiavo, Paris + 33 14 420 6718;
Massimo.Schiavo@spglobal.com
Karl Nietvelt, Paris + 33 14 420 6751;
karl.nietvelt@spglobal.com

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: research_request@spglobal.com.