Photo Credit: Gerry Harrow
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (13) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
2 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
July 21, 2009

Big Oil Bets on Biofuels

by Jennifer Kho, Contributor
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

At first glance, it might look like oil companies are pulling out of renewables. At the end of June, BP closed its alternative-energy headquarters. The oil company also has cut its alternative-energy budget and closed several solar factories in Spain. And that's after Shell sold off most of its solar business at the end of 2007. But while solar might not have been the best fit for the petroleum industry, analysts say that oil companies might be better-positioned in renewable fuels – and are seeing some obvious signs of movement into the area.

"My gut [feeling] is that oil companies understand that, at some point, they've got to get into renewables."

-- Michael Butler, CEO, Cascadia Capital

One of the biggest is ExxonMobil's announcement last week that it will invest more than $600 million in algae-based biofuels, with more than $300 million going to Synthetic Genomics. Of course, oil companies have previously invested at the research level, such as when BP announced it would invest $500 million — over a decade — in a research consortium led by the University of California at Berkeley in 2007. But Michael Butler, CEO of investment bank Cascadia Capital, said that starting last fall, about when the economic downturn began, he began seeing more activity in the business of renewable fuels as well.

Some examples? U.S. oil company Valero Energy Corp. in March won court approval to buy seven ethanol plants — and one partially completed plant — from VeraSun Energy Corp. Earlier this month, Redmond, Wash.-based Prometheus Energy, which converts waste methane into liquid natural gas, said it raised $20 million from the Shell Technology Ventures Fund and Black River Asset Management, a subsidiary of the agricultural giant Cargill. And in February, Conoco opened an ethanol fuel-blending station in Kansas in partnership with ICM, Poet and Crescent Oil. Conoco and Tyson Foods in May suspended plans for a plant that would have made biodiesel from animal fat, but DTN Research analyst Rick Kment said Conoco is considering buying a biofuel plant on the East Coast.

One reason for these investments is that the recession — along with the hard times for the ethanol and biodiesel industry — has led to great deals for biofuel assets, Kment said. Valero was able to acquire VeraSun assets for a mere 30 percent of the estimated cost of building the plants, and similar opportunities may be available. In February, Archer Daniel Midlands told analysts that nearly 21 percent of U.S. ethanol production capacity had been shut down, meaning that plenty of defunct assets could be up for grabs.

Kment said he expects to see more examples of oil companies buying ethanol and biofuel plants to meet that standard. After all, the renewable fuel standard calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuel to be blended into transportation fuels by 2022, up from 9 billion gallons last year. At today's low prices, it makes sense for blenders to buy biofuel assets as a hedge against higher prices in the future, Kment said. "At this point, companies are looking at this as economical and a good investment," he said. "The value of these plants are at nickels or dimes on the dollar, so [oil companies] have an opportunity to lock up a portion of their blending needs of biofuels … and hedge their overall cost in case the overall supply becomes tighter in the future."

Kment sees oil companies spending more money at the asset-acquisition level than at the startup stage. But even those smaller startup investments represent a significant trend at a time when many venture capitalists and private-equity investors are pulling back, Butler said. "They're filling a void in the marketplace," he said. "Oil companies have the [technological expertise] to get really deep into this technology. So they can afford to take these bets and take on some of this risk."

Many renewable-fuel technologies have turned out to be harder to fully commercialize than startups expect. (It took Prometheus Energy, for example, an extra 1-plus year to get up and running. The company was delisted from the London AIM exchange last year, before scoring its funding round.) But even though financial investors have been burned by the significant amount of capital and secure distribution channels that it takes to make biofuels successful, those same factors could give oil companies an edge, Butler said. In fact, several of his clients are currently in discussions with big oil and gas companies. "It's just a natural fit," he said. "Big companies bring the distribution and [scale], and startups bring the technology and the innovation." 

In any case, all the investments signify that the petroleum industry "really looks at biofuels as a stable part of the industry," Kment said. "Whether they like it or appreciate it or not, they see it as being part of the [fuels] industry and one of the things needed to [do business] in the United States."

Butler agrees that it's a milestone for biofuels. "My gut [feeling] is that oil companies understand that, at some point, they've got to get into renewables," he said. "I'm not really sure they’re going to develop the products in their own companies, so it probably makes more sense for them to go outside. If the technology ends up working, this could be very, very synergistic."

The trend of oil companies expanding from buying to also producing biofuels could significantly grow the industry, analysts said. Renewable fuels is certainly a better fit for oil companies than solar power, said Ron Pernick, a principal at research firm Clean Edge. "They didn't know [solar] manufacturing, didn't have the distribution channels for something like a solar panel — it didn't fit their gestalt or their DNA," he said.

Alternative fuels could make far more sense because they tie more closely to oil and gas companies' core business, he added. "Here is a business where a lot of biofuel tech companies have tried and failed, and maybe that wasn't the right fit for them," he said. "I think if anyone can crack this nut, it's probably the chemical and oil and gas guys."

Freelancer Jennifer Kho has been covering green technology since 2004, when she was a reporter at Red Herring magazine. She has more than nine years of reporting experience, most recently serving as the editor of Greentech Media. Her stories have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, BusinessWeek.com, CNN.com, Earth2Tech, Cleantechnica, MIT's Technology Review, and TheStreet.com.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (13)
 
No image available
July 21, 2009
While Big Oil doesn't seem like a fit for solar PV production, it may be a better match for solar thermal. Big Oil should fit for just about anything that requires big processing plants, like parabolic trough solar thermal. And of course, anything requiring refining capacity is a direct match like most carbon neutral gas or liquid renewable fuels.

It's sad to see RE pioneers get stung by the recession. But it's good to see Big Oil pick up the pieces rather than have them go to rust. Big Oil will eventually own the liquid and gas RE industry, like it or not. So they may as well get it in gear now rather than later.
Comment 1 of 13
No image available
July 22, 2009
$50 million dollars a year is not a huge investment for a company that makes over 2,000 million dollars a month in profits. (that's take home, after all the expenses and taxes etc. are paid)

$600 million dollars is 1.3% of Exxon Mobil's profits for 2008 alone.{$45.2 Billion}

Statements made by XM executives lead me to believe that XM is more interested in maintaining a monopoly position using genetically modified algae to drive competitors out of business. In the same way that Monsanto is using GMO'd soybeans to establish a monopoly market in soybean right now.

The three companies mentioned, XM, BP and Shell had combined net profits of almost $100 Billion for 2008 alone, in spite of the economic recession over the last half of the year.

I have trouble believing that hyenas suddenly lose their spots and turn green----unless they are stalking prey.

You and I are hyena prey. I think the only green they are interested in, is the green we have in our pockets.
Comment 2 of 13
No image available
July 22, 2009
Aren't hyenas scavengers?

Why else would XM invest in R&D other than to gain a competitive advantage? Why would Big Oil change their business completely when there's still plenty of money to made in their businesses? Should Burger King stop making Whoppers and build PV plants?

How many green investors exist in the biofuels space that are investing purely for the benefit of humanity and the planet? I don't think Big Oil's interests are much different than anyone elses.
Comment 3 of 13
No image available
July 22, 2009
There are people out there willing to investing in renewables, because they already have enough money, that they can't even give all their money away.

There is I beleive an Cree Indian Prophecy.

Only when last tree has been cut down,
Only when last river has been poisened,
Only when lst fish has been caught,
Only then will you find money cannot be eaten.

Biofuel comes from waste, either animal or crop waste.
Burgerking is mentioned in previous article, well another well known company is interested in the concept in the UK.
Comment 4 of 13
No image available
July 22, 2009
Just out of curiosity, what does Prometheus Energy converting methane into LNG have to do with renewable energy? The only reason I've ever known to make LNG was ease of transportation over routes with no pipelines or electric distribution capacity.

Is big oil betting on biofuels, or trying to buy out the competition like they supposedly did to the 100 mile carbs. in the '70's?
Comment 5 of 13
No image available
July 23, 2009
----------"Why would Big Oil change their business completely when there's still plenty of money to made in their businesses?"-----------

Peak Oil. They are being forced to change. They know something that you don't know. Oil is running out. Even the oil companies know it now.

------"Why would Big Oil change their business completely when there's still plenty of money to made in their businesses?"--------

They wouldn't. Not unless they can see the end of the tracks and the edge of the cliff very plainly.
Comment 6 of 13
No image available
July 23, 2009
"Peak Oil. They are being forced to change. They know something that you don't know. Oil is running out. Even the oil companies know it now."

Peak Oil just means that the remaining oil produced becomes more valuable. That's higher margins for Big Oil. This is not a reason in itself to change their core business.

The big short term change Big Oil is making is focus on Natural gas development and LNG facilities. Even in a carbon-constrained and EV dominated future, Natural Gas has a significant market, and Big Oil is going after the reserves to take it into the latter part of this century.
Comment 7 of 13
No image available
July 23, 2009
-------"Peak Oil just means that the remaining oil produced becomes more valuable."---------

valuable = expensive

------"That's higher margins for Big Oil."---------

Exactly.

------" This is not a reason in itself to change their core business."-------

Yup.

-------"The big short term change Big Oil is making is focus on Natural gas development and LNG facilities."-------------

Yup---still the same situation for consumers---monopoly on resources for them, and market control and price manipulaton for them. That is why the flood of commercials recently about "We've taken the CO2 out of natural gas." They've always had to do that. It won't light or burn as well straight out of the ground-----it also contains hydrogen sulfide which gives it the rotten egg smell-----that forms sulphuric acid in the atmoshere when burned. Biofuels contain no sulphur. The consumer be damned---the environment be damned---profits are the only thing that counts. You can not possibly use natural gas without creating CO2. It is impossible.

Consumers have to look out for themselves. Big Oil is only going to look out for Big Oil. Biofuels will come from consumer demand, not Big Oil.
Comment 8 of 13
No image available
July 23, 2009
I agree almost completely. I think consumers choose to need natural gas though, so I don't think it's a completely one-sided relationship. The environment could also see some benefit if Big Oil harnesses the hydrates and methane for burning that global warming will continue to expose in the Artic. . . . I just don't understand why people expect them to drop what they're doing and lead an alternative energy revolution.
Comment 9 of 13
July 23, 2009
Panthael - before you accuse us of expecting them to drop what they're doing for solar (which is just plain false) please consider what this article is about. It's about BP dropping solar. They're the ones doing the dropping.

I for one am all for Bio-Fuels ... the up and coming energy trainwreck will need a multigrained approach from bio-fuels to nuclear to solar.
Comment 10 of 13
No image available
July 24, 2009
Pantheal----in order to use natural gas, you will have to have your vehicle converted. This will cost you about $2,000. And you will still be producing CO2 that was underground. It will still produce GHG effect emmissions.

Instead, why not get yourself a vehicle with a diesel engine. You won't have to convert anything. You can use biofuel directly. And the CO2 that you produce came out of the atmoshere to go into your tank. And everytime that you fill up----the same thing. That is recycling. That is what nature has been doing for billions of years.

Or, buy a flex fuel vehicle and do the same thing. Flex Fuel vehicles cost the same as gasoline only. They have exactly the same options and performance.

Which is easier and more cost effective?

If BP drops solar, so what, you can still buy solar from other companies. If you want to have solar power---put in solar power. I'm all for it. And when BP smells profits in solar----they will jump onboard again.
Comment 11 of 13
No image available
July 27, 2009
Mr. Austin - The article is about Big Oil betting on Biofuels . . . the reference to BP and Shell shedding some of their solar business is in there to illustrate what Big Oil is placing importance on (Biofuels). I'm for Biofuels as well, although the Renewable Energy World podcast on water issues a few weeks back got me a bit scared about some of the implications.

In general, I'm not accusing you of anything . . . I just don't think arguments that try to throw dirt on x company for only spending x percentage of their annual profits on x , etc. etc. hold much merit.
Comment 12 of 13
No image available
July 27, 2009
Mr. Linn - I don't think NG for vehicles makes much sense either, given our starting point.

However NG for power generation, particularly peaking power and to supplement variable energy sources does seem to make a lot of sense, especially with a goal of replacing coal-fired baseload generation.
Comment 13 of 13
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
OPEL Solar, Inc. All Energy PetersenDean Roofing and Solar Systems Interstate Renewable Energy Council Renewable Energy World North America ORMAZABAL
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo