Generic Hero BannerGeneric Hero Banner
Latest market news

Carbon management a must for EU clean industry: ZEP

  • : Emissions, Hydrogen
  • 25/01/06

The European Commission must move beyond just renewables and electrification to a more holistic approach to decarbonisation, Zero Emissions Platform (ZEP) secretary-general Eadbhard Pernot told Argus ahead of the commission's expected Clean Industrial Deal proposal on 26 February.

How important is this Clean Industrial Deal?

The industrial sector is directly responsible for some 20-25pc of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally. If you factor in all energy emissions linked to the industrial sector — whether in power or other sectors — then you're looking at 40-45pc of GHG emissions. Under existing tools like the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), globally traded industrial products such as steel or aluminium will still be imported at lower cost from other regions, such as China, with massive oversupply. In many cases, exporters will shift existing clean production to Europe and send other carbon-intensive products elsewhere. Or they will simply import finished products like cars here without accounting for those emissions. It's a lose-lose.

What other specific concrete adjustments can the EU or Clean Industrial Deal bring?

Creating a market for decarbonised cement, fertilisers, steel and aluminium, for example, should be on the list of things in the Clean Industrial Deal. In many cases, governments themselves are the ones procuring products — think of bridges and other major infrastructure. That entails reform of EU procurement rules and having long-term offtake agreements.

We've got a lot of industrial sites that are going to start producing decarbonised products within the next year or so. If we look at Norway's Longship Project — with multiple emitters, including the Norcem cement plant in Brevik, fertiliser producer Yara, and Haflsund's waste to energy facility — multiple industrial producers are going to be producing decarbonised products and services in the next years, built around common infrastructure projects. We have to ensure a market exists for them.

How do you see the wider industrial carbon management strategy unfolding?

With the EU elections in June and the start of a new commission, 2024 wasn't an ordinary year. But things are moving in the background. So far, there's been a particular focus on where the best areas are in Europe to develop commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) sites, like the North Sea, but now it's clear that CCS is essential for the whole of Europe. Central, eastern and southern European countries are taking action.

What other legislative solutions do you want to see?

Currently, there are no clear EU-wide rules on how the CCS market functions — unlike for gas, power and hydrogen. So we need to secure a regulatory framework for CO2 transport, tackling competitive issues, pricing, ownership of infrastructure and third-party access. We need rules of the game for emitters, storage sites, pipelines and shippers.

We hope to see that EU framework within the next 18 months. This is really important for investors and lenders too. At the moment, we only have a patchwork with the 2009 CCS Directive. And the only country with a detailed comprehensive framework is outside the EU — the UK.

Do you think the EU really has the political will to push for CCS?

Given the role that CCS and carbon capture and use (CCU) will have to play in emissions reductions as well as removals, industrial carbon management is essential to meet the EU's net 90pc GHG CO2 reduction target for 2040. It's non-negotiable, and politicians recognise this now across the political spectrum.

Can hydrogen help decarbonise industry?

Clean hydrogen certainly has the potential to decarbonise some hard-to-abate industrial processes in the long term. The hydrogen industry is also currently responsible for a significant chunk of European emissions, and that isn't discussed enough. When making grey hydrogen, we need to stop venting CO2 into the atmosphere that could otherwise just be permanently geologically stored. Our focus in the recent EU delegated act on low-carbon hydrogen was to ensure the criteria for carbon stored outside Europe meet the same standard as ours in the EU.


Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

25/04/11

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting. Argus Media spoke to ministerial adviser and Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, on the sidelines of the London MEPC meeting. What is your initial reaction to the text? We are happy and satisfied about the content of the agreed text, so far. But we need to be careful. This week, all member states were able to vote. But in October, when adaption will take place, only those states which are parties to Marpol Annex VI will be able to vote if indeed a vote is called for, and that changes the situation a little bit. Here when we were voting, a minority was enough — 40 votes. But if or when we vote in October, then we need two thirds of those party to Marpol Annex VI to be in favour of the text. Will enthusiasm for the decision today remain by October? I'm pretty sure it will. But you never know what will happen between now and and the next six months. What is the effect of the decision on FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS? Both FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS have a review clause. This review clause states that if we are ambitious enough at the IMO, then the EU can review or amend the regulation. So of course, it is very important that we first consider if the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough to meet EU standards. Only after that evaluation, which won't be until well after October, can we consider these possible changes. Do you think the EU will be able to adopt these the text as it stands today? My personal view is that we can perhaps incorporate this text under FuelEU Maritime, but it may be more challenging for the EU ETS, where shipping is now included. What was the impact of US President Donald Trump's letter on the proceedings? EU states were not impacted, but it's difficult to say what the impact was on other states. By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism


25/04/11
25/04/11

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, pending an adoption vote at the next MEPC in October. The proposal passed by a majority vote, with 63 nations in favor including EU states, the UK, China and India, and 16 members opposed, including Mideast Gulf states, Russia, and Venezuela. The US was absent from the MEPC 83 meeting, and 24 member states abstained. The proposal was accompanied by an amendment to implement the regulation, which was approved for circulation ahead of an anticipated adoption at the October MEPC. Approval was not unanimous, which is rare. If adoption is approved in October at a vote that will require a two-thirds majority, the maritime industry will become the first transport sector to implement internationally mandated targets to reduce GHG emissions. The text says ships must initially reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 ( see table ) against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. This gradually tightens to 30pc by 2035. The text defines a "direct compliance target", that starts at 17pc for 2028 and grows to 43pc by 2035. The pricing mechanism establishes a levy for excessive emissions at $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) for ships compliant with the minimum 'base' target, called Tier 2. For ships in Tier 1 — those compliant with the base target but that still have emission levels higher than the direct compliance target — the price was set at $100/tCO2e. Over-compliant vessels will receive 'surplus units' equal to their positive compliance balance, expressed in tCO2e, valid for two years after emission. Ships then will be able to use the surplus units in the following reporting periods; transfer to other vessels as a credit; or voluntarily cancel as a mitigation contribution. IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said while it would have been more preferable to have a unanimous outcome, this outcome is a good result nonetheless. "We work on consensus, not unanimity," he said. "We demonstrated that we will continue to work as an organization despite the concerns." Looking at the MEPC session in October, Dominguez said: "Different member states have different positions, and there is time for us to remain in the process and address those concerns, including those that were against and those that were expecting more." Dominguez said the regulation is set to come into force in 2027, with first revenues collected in 2028 of an estimated $11bn-13bn. Dominguez also said there is a clause within the regulation that ensures a review at least every five years. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara IMO GHG reduction targets Year Base Target Direct Compliance Target 2028 4% 17% 2029 6% 19% 2030 8% 21% 2031 12% 25% 2032 17% 30% 2033 21% 34% 2034 26% 39% 2035 30% 43% Source: IMO Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Q&A: Australia’s Corporate Carbon expands ACCU trading


25/04/11
25/04/11

Q&A: Australia’s Corporate Carbon expands ACCU trading

Sydney, 11 April (Argus) — Australian carbon project developer Corporate Carbon has been expanding its trading capabilities around Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) on the back of growing supply and wider market maturity. Head of carbon trading Angus Robertson spoke with Argus about the latest developments in the market. Corporate Carbon is one of the biggest suppliers of ACCUs. Is it correct that the company has been issued around 15mn ACCUs, counting both fully-owned projects and partnerships, which would be around 10pc of all ACCU issuances since the scheme started in 2011? Yes, that's the approximate number. We've got around 100 projects. In terms of issuance from a mix of owned projects and offtake agreements with other developers and partners in the industry, the approximate forecast is around 3mn ACCUs/yr. We trade around that and then also have capacity to trade outside of our own projects and within the portfolio, plus operating as a trading entity in the secondary market. The company has been one of the main suppliers to private buyers, and to the federal government through carbon abatement contracts (CACs). But you are also buyers. How does that work? The increased capability of our business to both buy and sell is a reflection of the broader Australian carbon market maturing over the last few years. The beginning of the business was very much built off the back of those CACs. As that policy changed over time, allowing for the partial exiting of those CACs , obviously there's been a lot more focus on the secondary market now. We've seen a lot of trading houses, banks and other financial institutions coming into the market, and with that you get a more mature financial market. So in response to that, we've been building out our trading capacity as well as our broader commercial team over the past few years. We take a portfolio approach and we have a large inventory flow to assist with that growing demand, but there are times when we go out to the secondary market and source units on behalf of clients. You recently partnered with trading and risk management firm Ion Commodities to implement their Carbon Zero tool. How does that translate into your trading capabilities? We see Ion's solution as a really effective trading tool and portfolio management system. It reflects our readiness to operate at a larger scale. By providing those tools, it allows us to focus on the strategic goals of the business, especially from a commercial perspective. It is very much a tool for reporting purposes and the automation capabilities of the system assist with that, but it does have a bit of a flow-on effect in terms of efficiency across the business as well. Going to the market, in the short term, it seems to be all about the upcoming federal elections. Do you expect to see much price volatility within the next few weeks? Yes. As we approach the Australian federal election, we would expect there to be a degree of uncertainty, considering the difference in the two major party outcomes in terms of their take on the carbon market. We would see it as positive in either instance, but I think there is still a degree of uncertainty that should lead to perhaps a degree of illiquidity in the market. The market has been also weighed down by a strong issuance of safeguard mechanism credits (SMCs). Were you surprised with that high volume when it was first disclosed by the Climate Change Authority late last year? I think it was the general market consensus that the number was higher than initially forecast, and [ACCU] market prices definitely reflected that in the following weeks and months after those numbers were disclosed. Once the final numbers were released, I think the market had generally already priced that in by that point. Has that changed your internal outlook for when the ACCU market might see an expected shift from oversupply to undersupply? I wouldn't say our internal view has changed all that much. If the majority of that volume is now weighted towards the early years of the safeguard mechanism, policies might reflect that going forward. Now we would probably see ACCU supply as a potential restriction on the market in the short to medium term. Obviously, there's speculation around certain methods in the ACCU market, where higher forecasts were expected over the following next few years and that's now no longer the case. So probably more around supply than demand in terms of our shifted internal views, and this is more from a trading and market perspective as opposed to our actual projects being affected. So it's more on the supply side than demand, even with the high SMC issuances? Well, obviously the market has reacted to those media releases by the regulator around SMCs. So you know that's already happened — you can't really argue that now. Will there be further policy changes around the safeguard mechanism to account for that? That's a bit of an unknown, but it's definitely potential in the following years. And when you talk about supply constraints, is it mostly the delays with the development of the integrated farm and land management methodology , and potentially lower issuances from a reformed landfill gas method? Those are good examples of general delays in certain methods and the creation of new methods. So yes, our expectation is that this could be a big driver on ACCU prices in the next few years. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Oil and gas lobby calls H2 'core competency,' hails 45v


25/04/10
25/04/10

Oil and gas lobby calls H2 'core competency,' hails 45v

Houston, 10 April (Argus) — The oil and gas industry views hydrogen production as a "core competency" and sees 45v tax credits driving US exports and innovation, according to the American Petroleum Institute (API). "We really see this, especially from the oil and gas perspective, as a core competency," said Rachel Fox, API director of policy and strategy, on a webinar Thursday hosted by ConservAmerica. "We have such an advantageous opportunity with this credit," said Fox. "When we're talking about the export opportunity, we really do hold the cards in terms of producing hydrogen at the lowest cost anywhere in the world." The 45V incentive has become a crucible in President Donald Trump's agenda to promote fossil fuels. A broad-based coalition of groups sometimes at odds with one another has coalesced in favor of 45V noting that it promotes manufacturing jobs across rural America and sets up US energy companies to dominate growing global demand for cleaner burning fuels. Nonetheless, ConservAmerica described such energy tax incentives as being "squarely in the crosshairs" as legislators gear up for budget negotiations in which the administration is looking to slash government spending to offset a promised corporate tax cut. By tying a tiered scale of incentives to carbon intensity, 45V has spurred oil and gas companies to develop technologies and practices that curb emissions, said Fox. "There's a lot of incentive to try to hit that $3 mark by getting your hydrogen produced at a really low carbon-intensity limit and so it's galvanized a ton of innovation and a ton of new ideas on how that can be done throughout the natural gas system," said Fox. Most of those ideas revolve around lowering the methane intensity of natural gas production or sourcing low-methane intensity natural gas, such as from biowaste, said Fox. Some environmental advocates are skeptical that emissions from natural-gas based hydrogen production can be driven low enough to qualify for the highest $3/kg tier with existing technology and that most oil and gas companies will instead have to use less lucrative 45Q credits that apply to carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). However, at least one major energy company, ExxonMobil, has said it is seeking 45V to advance its massive natural-gas based hydrogen and ammonia project in Baytown, Texas. By Jasmina Kelemen Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

New tariffs could upend US tallow imports: Correction


25/04/10
25/04/10

New tariffs could upend US tallow imports: Correction

Corrects description of options for avoiding feedstock tariffs in 12th paragraph. Story originally published 3 April. New York, 10 April (Argus) — New US tariffs on nearly all foreign products could deter further imports of beef tallow, a fast-rising biofuel feedstock and food ingredient that had until now largely evaded President Donald Trump's efforts to reshape global trade. Tallow was the most used feedstock for US biomass-based diesel production in January for the first month ever, with consumption by pound rising month to month despite sharp declines in actual biorefining and in use of competing feedstocks. The beef byproduct benefits from US policies, including a new federal tax credit known as "45Z", that offer greater subsidies to fuel derived from waste than fuel derived from first-generation crops. Much of that tallow is sourced domestically, but the US also imported more than 880,000t of tallow last year, up 29pc from just two years earlier. The majority of those imports last year came from Brazil, which until now has faced a small 0.43¢/kg (19.5¢/lb) tariff, and from Australia, which was exempt from any tallow-specific tariffs under a free trade agreement with US. But starting on 5 April, both countries will be subject to at least the new 10pc charge on foreign imports. There are some carveouts from tariffs for certain energy products, but animal fats are not included. Some other major suppliers — like Argentina, Uruguay, and New Zealand — will soon have new tariffs in place too, although tallow from Canada is for now unaffected because it is covered by the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement. Brazil tallow shipments to the US totaled around 300,000t in 2024, marking an all-time high, but tallow shipments during the fourth quarter of 2024 fell under the 2023 levels as uncertainty about future tax policy slowed buying interest. Feedstock demand in general in the US has remained muted to start this year because of poor biofuel production margins, and that has extended to global tallow flows. Tallow suppliers in Brazil for instance were already experiencing decreased interest from US producers before tariffs. Brazil tallow prices for export last closed at $1,080/t on 28 March, rising about 4pc year-to-date amid support from the 45Z guidance and aid from Brazil's growing biodiesel industry, which is paying a hefty premium for tallow compared to exports. While the large majority of Brazilian tallow exports end up in the US, Australian suppliers have more flexibility and could send more volume to Singapore instead if tariffs deter US buyers. Export prices out of Australia peaked this year at $1,185/t on 4 March but have since trended lower to last close at $1,050/t on 1 April. In general, market participants say international tallow suppliers would have to drop offers to keep trade flows intact. Other policy shifts affect flows Even as US farm groups clamored for more muscular foreign feedstock limits over much of the last year, tallow had until now largely dodged any significant restrictions. Recent US guidance around 45Z treats all tallow, whether produced in the US or shipped long distances to reach the US, the same. Other foreign feedstocks were treated more harshly, with the same guidance providing no pathway at all for road fuels from foreign used cooking oil and also pinning the carbon intensity of canola oil — largely from Canada — as generally too high to claim any subsidy. But tariffs on major suppliers of tallow to the US, and the threat of additional charges if countries retaliate, could give refiners pause. Demand could rise for domestic animal fats or alternatively for domestic vegetable oils that can also be refined into fuel, especially if retaliatory tariffs cut off global markets for US farm products like soybean oil. There is also risk if Republicans in the Trump administration or Congress reshape rules around 45Z to penalize foreign feedstocks. At the same time, a minimum 10pc charge for tallow outside North America is a more manageable price to pay compared to other feedstocks — including a far-greater collection of charges on Chinese used cooking oil. And if the US sets biofuel blend mandates as high as some oil and farm groups are pushing , strong demand could leave producers with little choice but to continue importing at least some feedstock from abroad to continue making fuel. Not all US renewable diesel producers will be equally impacted by tariffs either. Some tariffs are eligible for drawbacks, meaning that producers could potentially recover tariffs they paid on feedstocks for fuel that is ultimately exported. And multiple biofuel producers are located in foreign-trade zones, a US program that works similarly to the duty drawbacks, and have applied for permission to avoid some tariffs on imported feedstocks for fuel eventually shipped abroad. Jurisdictions like the EU and UK, where sustainable aviation fuel mandates took effect this year, are attractive destinations. And there is still strong demand from the US food sector, with edible tallow prices in Chicago up 18pc so far this year. Trump allies, including his top health official, have pushed tallow as an alternative to seed oils. By Cole Martin and Jamuna Gautam Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Generic Hero Banner

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more