CO₂ Utilization: Which Pathways Will Win?

Chris Robinson: Welcome to the webinar, Emission or Asset: Identifying Winning CO₂ Utilization Pathways. My name is Chris Robinson. I’m the Senior Director here at Lux Research, and I’ll be moderating today’s session. Presenting today is my colleague Mukunda Kaushik, Senior Analyst here at Lux Research. Throughout the webinar, you can type questions into the questions box on your screen. As time permits, we’ll answer all the questions that we can. If your question isn’t answered, please don’t hesitate to email it to [email protected], and we’ll make sure to respond. Lastly, if at any point you experience technical difficulties like a frozen screen, simply refresh your browser and just check to make sure your connection is strong. With that, we can jump into the presentation. So over to you, Mukunda.

Mukunda Kaushik: Thank you, Chris. And thanks everyone for joining us today. We will start today’s webinar by looking at the state of the global carbon economy and why it needs CO₂ utilization in the first place. Then we look at some industry specific CO₂ utilization strategies and developments, and end with an outlook and recommendations for everyone in the audience today. To start, what you see here is the global flow of CO₂ from the capture source to the end use based on planned projects. So this is not a forecast or a projection. This is capacity from real planned projects over the next two decades that real companies on the ground are planning to build or already building. So essentially, there will be about 750 megatons of CO₂ in circulation over the next two decades. And this 750 megatons comes from three sources. 96 is about biogenic CO₂. So that’s bioenergy, ethanol production, and growing segments like biogas and waste-to-energy as well. The bulk of the CO₂ actually comes from the industrial sector, so we’re talking about 640 megatons. And this is probably what you think about when you hear carbon capture. The biggest contributors here are power generation, natural gas processing from oil and gas, refinery operations, as well as hard to abate sectors like cement. And the smallest but growing segment is DAC, or direct air capture, which accounts for about 13 megatons. The distinction between these three types of CO₂ sources is important because these are three very distinct grades of CO₂ and have distinct profiles. Biogenic CO₂ and DAC are non-fossil, which gives them a very different position in the emerging markets compared to industrial CO₂, which is fossil. And given that DAC is long-term and expensive, biogenic CO₂ is essentially the only non-fossil source of CO₂ that is available for the near term. So once all of the CO₂ gets captured, what happens? Most of it, unsurprisingly, is targeted for permanent underground sequestration. But the CO₂ can also be used as a feedstock and valorized, which is the focus of today’s webinar. A smaller portion, about 30 megatons, is going towards CO₂ utilization. And this may seem small in comparison to sequestration, but it’s also on par with the maturity of end-use markets today. But in the audience, the part that you should be paying closer attention to is that red 170 megatons of CO₂ that has an undecided end use. This means that several companies plan to capture CO₂, but they are yet to decide what to do with the CO₂ after. So they don’t know what to do and build a business case around it. This 170 megatons of CO₂ represents at least a $25 billion problem for the industrial sector to address. If this is not addressed and emitters don’t have an attractive end use for CO₂, we can assume that a lot of these carbon capture projects will not become operational and those emissions will not be captured. But why does this $25 billion problem need CO₂ utilization? Why can’t companies just sequester CO₂ like a lot of their peers? And what will the scaling of CO₂ utilization mean for global CO₂ flows? Those are some of the questions that we look at today. So why CO₂ utilization? We need utilization because it solves two problems. The first is that it helps these undecided projects build a business case. Unless you have high carbon taxes, carbon capture is essentially a cost sink for your company. And sequestration does not change that, especially if you have to pay hub developers to store the CO₂ for you. So CO₂ utilization can help turn your current carbon capture cost sink into a revenue generating platform. Secondly, scaling CO₂ utilization is not just beneficial for those undecided projects. As utilization markets scale, it can actually cause a shift in the global flow of CO₂ away from sequestration and towards utilization. And this can fundamentally change how you and other companies think about CCUS. So, for example, 80 megatons of biogenic CO₂, which is currently planned for sequestration, is enough feedstock to sustain about 200 SAF facilities through Fischer–Tropsch or about 500 e-methanol facilities, which is a significant amount. But to scale CO₂ utilization, regulations will have to play a very important role. And historically, regulations have always favored sequestration over utilization. This is either through direct tax credits or through setting frameworks for permitting as well as transport and storage. That’s still more or less the case today. It hasn’t changed too much. But if you break it down regionally, Southeast Asia, which has a very fast growing carbon economy, is setting strong frameworks at the federal level for sequestration. This is specifically because the region also braces itself for CO₂ imports. So countries like Indonesia, for example, have allocated 30% of their domestic storage capacity for CO₂ imports. So setting up these frameworks has to be a high priority and is very critical. Europe also has stronger targets and frameworks for sequestration, but there is a lot of utilization activity in the region. The only exception that you see here in terms of mandating utilization is the e-fuel submandate. The US today is the only region where sequestration and utilization have parity in regulators’ eyes. So as of 2025, the 45Q tax credits provide the same credit and rebate for both sequestration and utilization. This is a big milestone for the utilization industry because it’s one of the first times that regulators have strongly recognized and rewarded utilization products beyond enhanced oil recovery. So you have CO₂ that you’ve captured and you want to know what you can do with it. What you see on this slide here is your menu card, so to speak. So there’s six broad markets. And what you see here are about 30 different specific end products that companies out there are targeting. So you have concrete where CO₂ can be secured in cement mixes, or it can be converted into supplementary cementitious material or aggregates, so calcium carbonate and so forth. We’re also seeing early-stage activity in biocement, where CO₂ is a feedstock for biomass to produce a cement-like material as a metabolite. Then you have synthetic fuels, which is arguably one of the largest markets because of sustainable aviation fuels where you produce SAF, e-methanol, even e-methane or synthetic natural gas. And we also see some early-stage activity in CO₂ to propane. The third is chemicals, and this is where you see the most diversity. So a lot of C1 intermediates like syngas and formic acid, ethanol, ethylene, and so forth. And there’s early-stage activity in looking at C3 chemicals and some innovations in indirect routes as well. Then you have polymers where polycarbonates and polyols for polyurethane are quite commercial. And emerging products are monoethylene glycol for PET plastics as well as PHAs. The two more niche markets are solid carbon, so carbon black, as well as carbon nanomaterial, as well as ingredients, so single-cell proteins. And a new end product we’ve been seeing activity in is lipids, where non-usable fractions of Fischer–Tropsch are converted into triglycerides and lipids for food products. But the main takeaway here is that there is no templated best and worst end product. For everyone in the audience, there is definitely a best and a worst end product for you and your company. But the key aspect here is that every industry and every company will engage with these products and this market differently, which means that it makes just as much sense for Cemex to produce aggregates as it does for Braskem to consider polyols and polyurethanes, for example. So this means that you’ll have to build a very specific CO₂ utilization strategy for yourself, and that’s what we want to explore further today. So if we come back to that $25 billion problem, right, so we’ve selected two industries that have this undisclosed CO₂ utilization problem or CO₂ end use problem, and we’ll dissect what they’re doing in these markets and what the future for those markets hold. So let’s take a look at some specific industries. We look at oil and gas as well as petrochemicals or the chemicals industry. So for oil and gas, the main emissions that need to be considered are natural gas processing, but also power generation. We see majors like Chevron and ExxonMobil increasingly announcing plans to build new natural gas power plants for data centers. And if that grows, the industry will have control to some extent on emissions from these sectors as well. For chemicals, we look at refinery emissions as well as projects in specific chemical manufacturing processes, so like ethylene oxide, ethane cracking, for example. So we’ll start with oil and gas. There are about 72 megatons of undisclosed CO₂ here, most of which comes from power and heat. So with natural gas processing, what you see here is that a fair amount of it is actually going towards enhanced oil recovery. And that makes sense given how close it is to the industry’s infrastructure. So we do expect that to continue or even increase and not necessarily be a feedstock for other CO₂ utilization pathways. But the other part within the oil and gas industry that can’t be ignored is that the oil and gas industry is and will be big players and propagators of sequestration, so permanent storage. So they will push to sequester CO₂ from emitters. But they will push to sequester CO₂ from other industrial emitters because that’s a revenue source for them. But for their own CO₂, it still makes sense to explore EOR and utilization. And of the six markets that we looked at, we mostly see the industry engaging within synthetic fuels. And they engage either directly or indirectly. When engaging directly, oil and gas majors have their own technology platforms. So ExxonMobil Energies have their own methanol to jet platforms, for example, where they can convert CO₂ into methanol and then that methanol into e-SAF. But oil and gas companies can also have an indirect stake by investing in more upstream parts of the value chain. They invest in companies developing carbon capture or water electrolysis, and these companies are part of broader e-fuel projects. For example, Chevron and Aramco were investors in Carbon Clean’s 150 million CDC and Carbon Clean provides its technology for two project developers like Liquid Wind, for example, for e-methanol. So this is a very active sector and there’s a lot of project development underway. Most of them are commercial scale projects that have been announced but do carry a very high risk. So 2025 to about 2028, 2029 is a very pivotal window for synthetic fuels because they need to go through final investment decision in this period. And we do expect a lot of challenges here, mainly because of the high cost of production, which makes e-fuels quite uncompetitive in the market today. Second, between the three end products that you see here, e-methanol, e-kerosene or jet fuel through Fischer–Tropsch and e-methane, we expect to see more activity in e-methanol. And that’s partly because of methanol’s use in multiple industries, which helps spread out the risk in project developers finding offtake agreements. Methanol can be used directly as a marine fuel, but it can also be used to produce SAF either through methanol to jet or even converted into olefins and other chemical products. Whereas with Fischer–Tropsch, you are more or less tied to the aviation sector for jet fuel. The three big methanol projects that you see here are European Energy, which has already produced its first batch of e-methanol. Liquid Wind, which did have some setbacks in Europe over the last year over the lack of offtake, but they have raised funding since and are continuing to develop projects. And the last is per stops Project Air, looking at about 200 kilotons per year of e-methanol. For jet fuel through Fischer–Tropsch, you have more consortium activity like Arcadia, for example, setting up 80 kiloton per year facilities in Denmark as well as the U.S. And some smaller independent companies like Infinium have also started construction of projects like Project Roadrunner in the U.S., also using modified Fischer–Tropsch. We’re expecting and do see more announcements within methanol to jet. So Honeywell, for example, recently announced a methanol to jet project in Iceland with Carbon Recycling International. We spoke about natural gas processing and power generation in the context of oil and gas here. But another key aspect to note is that biogenic CO₂ will play a much bigger role here because fuels are not a permanent carbon sink. When that fuel is combusted, the CO₂ is essentially released into the atmosphere. So biogenic CO₂ as a non-fossil source will have a big role to play. So what are some key signals and trends that you should be looking out for in this market to determine your next steps as well as the success of this market? We’re seeing a lot more corporate consolidation. So projects developed by these consolidated corporates will have the highest chances of success. So we’re talking about Sasol and TOPSO launching their joint venture Zafra. Or even Honeywell acquiring Johnson Matthey’s entire catalyst business, which does include its synthetic fuel portfolio. And the focus of this type of integration is essentially to address engineering challenges in the sector and increase production. For example, a facility that integrates Johnson Matthey’s CO₂-to-methanol technology with Honeywell UOP’s methanol-to-jet process can reportedly produce an additional 100,000 tons of SAF over its lifetime. And that essentially translates to about an additional $100 million in revenue compared to the unintegrated offering. Second, Fischer–Tropsch versus methanol to jet is really the center stage of this industry at the moment. And it’s essentially a question of which pathway can valorize CO₂ as a feedstock at a lower cost. And Lux’s analysis shows that methanol to jet has the potential to be cheaper. So you should look to focus your efforts there or within producing e-methanol. Lastly, you should keep a much closer eye on upstream developments. So on the feedstock side of things, any developments in obtaining a cheaper feedstock or a more abundant feedstock that can fit into an existing process can really go a long way. And this may sound really obvious as a takeaway, but it is also something that you can and should act on. For example, we saw this with alcohol to jet, which mainly uses ethanol. But since first generation ethanol is too carbon intensive and second generation ethanol is not available at scale, there was a need for a new feedstock for ethanol to jet. And that translated into growing momentum for methanol as an alternative. And that’s why we see activity in methanol to jet. The other reason to keep a closer eye on feedstock is because the two non-fossil CO₂ sources that we discussed in the beginning are both also being used to generate carbon credits. So for biogenic CO₂ as well as DAC, there is an alternative business model that incentivizes their sequestration because companies can sell carbon credits. So in the long term, this is really a bet on regulation to see what is accepted and what is not. But as a company, you need to make sure that you’re not being blindsided by these upstream developments. So this is an example of a company that uses CO₂– or an industry that uses CO₂ utilization to stay within its general domain. The oil and gas industry understands the fuels industry really well. But many companies like yourselves look to CO₂ utilization to move into new markets and adjacencies and increase their footprint in downstream markets. And CO₂ utilization does give you an opportunity to do that. So with that in mind, let’s switch to CO₂ to polymers, but see how the oil and gas industry is using this platform to move downstream compared to its current value chain position. Within polymers, oil and gas companies engage in two ways, acquisition to enter new markets or licensing out their own internal technology development to companies who are already more active in these downstream segments. So last year, ADNOC put out a bid to acquire Covestro, who was a leader within CO₂-based polymers. And this was part of ADNOC’s strategy to become a top five global chemicals company. Aramco has made moves here as well. So Aramco has developed a CO₂ to polyol technology, and it’s now exclusively licensing that to a startup, Econic, who is a leading company within this space. And the benefit with polymers is that it’s quite mature. So companies like ADNOC can really hit the ground running. So Covestro, for example, is already looking at projects at about 250 kilotons per year. And it produces polyurethane foams for automotive, mattresses, and furniture applications. So these technologies are a lot more ready to deploy and available. But of course, selling a polymer is very different to selling a fuel, and these consumer markets behave very differently. So marketability is an important factor to consider and companies need to demonstrate performance benefits as opposed to just sustainability benefits to win over consumer markets. So a good example here is using polyurethane mattresses or using polyurethane in memory foam mattresses. So consumers won’t pay an extra $300 for a greener or more sustainable mattress, but they will pay the premium for a longer lasting mattress or a memory foam that does not lose its shape. So it’s more of positioning using the technology as a platform. Lastly, you should also focus on developments within monoethylene glycol or MEG. It’s early-stage, but we’re seeing compatibility not just with thermal catalysis, but also with electrolysis as well as synthetic biology. And companies here are targeting plastic bottles, textiles, as well as surfactants, a lot of end market diversity. So this is an example of how the oil and gas industry is using CO₂ utilization to double down in its core business, but also integrated into part of its evolution. Let’s switch gears and talk about our second industry, which is the chemicals industry. In this case, we’re talking about 18 megatons or so of undisclosed CO₂. At first glance, this may seem a lot smaller than what we saw for the energy sector, which was about 72 megatons. But the proportion of undisclosed end use relative to the amount of CO₂ and carbon capture, it’s almost identical. So the magnitude of the challenge is still the same. With the chemicals industry, you’re already dealing with a vast array of carbon-based products. So there’s a lot of opportunity to recycle the CO₂ and match your portfolio. But specialty chemicals is not a fit for CO₂ utilization just yet because it’s very hard to move beyond the C2 boundary in terms of CO₂ chemicals. So we’re mostly looking at C2 as a ceiling, but there are developments in new intermediates and electrodes. The chemical industry’s engagement so far has been limited, but they engage in two ways. One is in a consortium format where there is a partner committed to taking and converting intermediates produced from CO₂. So the chemicals industry doesn’t want to necessarily just produce the syngas. They want to work in a consortium format where that syngas is converted into its final product. And that’s essentially to increase security. So that’s one way of engaging. And the second is when a startup shows product differentiation. So producing something from CO₂ that no one else has been able to do before. For example, the example here that you see is Braschem partnering with New Iridium, which makes C3 chemicals. So for a consortium, you see BASF working with about 13 other partners in the Flue2Chem consortia, where CO₂ is converted into ethanol, and then the ethanol is converted into products like surfactants and other consumer products. You also have Dow working with the US Department of Energy to launch a facility that would take CO₂ from its ethylene crackers and convert that CO₂ into carbonate solutions, which are used in lithium ion batteries. And the driver here is to essentially help with US domestic manufacturing of batteries. And as for other innovative startups producing new products that no one else is doing before, let’s take a look at the Lux innovation grid for CO₂ chemicals. With fuels and polymers, we showed you sort of the large scale projects. But with chemicals, the technology and the industry is not there yet, which is why we’re looking at the innovation grid. So you see companies like New Iridium sort of in the top as a high potential technology. But the other sort of key aspect to consider here is just because you can produce a chemical from CO₂ doesn’t mean you should. For example, you see companies like CERT looking at CO₂-to-ethylene. And that is a big driver to defossilize ethylene. So CO₂ to ethylene is an important technology. But you should be maximizing the potential for bio-based routes first. So looking at dehydration or biomass balancing where regulations allow it, because something like ethylene or methanol, they always compete based on cost. So it’s important to tap into the bio-based routes first before looking at CO₂ utilization. So that’s why we ask you to look at product based differentiation in segments that no one else has entered yet. So in terms of milestones, in terms of these more established C1, C2 products, you should be looking for pathway-based innovation where you can produce the same product at a lower price. We do expect to see more activity in synthetic biology or SynBio over the next few years in this regard, specifically for small scale production of more niche chemicals. So with SynBio, you’re not going to see 100 kiloton per year methanol plants, for example, and you shouldn’t expect it to scale to that level either. But with the right product, you don’t need to scale that either. Second pathway that we want to highlight is photocatalysis, which has largely been academic, but we’re starting to see the first few startup spinouts. And the niche that photocatalysis has is that it can help produce a downstream product by bypassing its intermediate. So two examples here that you also see in the innovation grid is New Iridium, which can produce something like methyl methacrylate from CO₂ bypassing methanol. Or there’s an Australian startup called Bira that can directly convert methane, let’s say, from landfill gases or flare gases into methanol by bypassing the syngas intermediate, which is how it’s typically produced. So that’s the edge with photocatalysis. So you should only engage if it can bypass these intermediates. Lastly, continuous CO₂ capture and conversion, where CO₂ is valorized into a product while still being dissolved in the carbon capture solvent. So the main value proposition here is that you don’t need to add in energy for CO₂ desorption, which makes the cost of CO₂ a lot cheaper. So in the context of the chemicals industry, if you do continuous CO₂ capture and conversion for a naphtha cracker or an ethylene oxide production facility, and convert that into ethylene on-site without CO₂ desorption, you can actually boost the overall product output of your facility while simultaneously reducing the carbon footprint of the final product. But overall, the current and the next phase of this category is still very much developmental and not really focused on scale just yet. So the chemicals industry should be looking at venture activity for the next five years or consortia. So these are two industries that engage with CO₂ utilization in very different ways, in ways that make sense for their business. So based on that, what are some overarching conclusions and takeaways for this industry and for you in the audience? So what you see here is the largest planned projects for different market segments. And of all the different products that we look at, e-methanol, jet fuel, ethanol as well as aggregates or supplementary cementitious material are the four or five products which have the most momentum and the most project announcements. So these will be really strong offtake markets for carbon capture products. So you should expect to see companies with platform technologies like electrolysis or synthetic biology try to pivot into these four or five markets because they’re quite established and they will have commercial projects. But you should only engage with early-stage players if there is something about the technology that inherently makes it cheaper. So if new players try to replicate the incumbents, you should refrain from engaging. So these are project announcements with strong project developers and technology platforms. But what will it really take for CO₂ utilization to be successful, and what are some of the main risk factors as these projects and products scale? The first is securing renewable energy. The energy profile for each of these projects and products will be very different. But in large, the availability of renewable energy will create hubs within regions and it will dictate whether certain products are produced on-site domestically or just imported. Right. For example, do you produce methanol on-site and then also convert that to jet fuel on-site, or do you import your methanol and then convert it to jet fuel on-site? Or everything happens offshore and you just import the SAF directly into your region. So it will also determine what future carbon carriers are, for example. So formic acid, which can be produced cost competitively, could emerge as a carbon carrier. Secondly, it’s important to align the scale of the amount of CO₂ that you have, the pathway used, and the amount of product that you want to make. So you have to have a minimum amount of CO₂ if you want to tap into certain markets. But at the same time, you don’t want to produce too much of that product to oversaturate the commodity market. Typically, thermocatalysis is good for scale. CO₂ electrolysis and synthetic biology or fermentation are better for smaller scale products. So it’s important to have that alignment. Lastly, finding initial offtake markets for CO₂ utilization is really important. And this is one of the main reasons why a lot of recent projects have actually been getting canceled. Companies and project developers focus on the total addressable market of something like methanol, for example. But it’s important to find initial markets. So the chemicals industry, in this regard, is a good example of what we would call a sleeping giant, meaning there’s a lot of demand for low-carbon chemicals, but then they don’t engage because of the cost. And this is really an embodiment of the green premium being a myth to some extent for the near term at least. So project developers need to find initial offtake markets, focus on cost reduction, and then gradually expand to the total addressable market. So with that in mind, what can you do and what should you do? First, if you have a carbon capture project in the works, considering utilization is not optional, more so if the project is in the region where storage is not available. So it’s not an option. It really is something you need to be thinking about. Scaling to utilization will secure the long-term viability of the investments that you make in your carbon capture projects today and in this decade. But in order to do that, you need to align the CO₂ utilization menu card with your own business strategy and evolution. What are core products that make sense for your business today where there is a natural fit? What are some first- and second-adjacency products? This is not just about products; the capability may also require onboarding microbiologists or electrochemists, depending on the pathway you need. Overall, however, the product has the greatest impact on your business. Lastly, companies need to have a closer eye on upstream feedstock and move upstream. So this is not just for sourcing, but also because regulations begin upstream. It’ll start by allowing or banning certain feedstocks, which can impact whether the utilization makes sense or not. It’ll be hard for a lot of these first-of-a-kind projects to chase perfection and there will be challenges. But what you should chase is compliance with regulations and moving upstream is really important for that. With that, thank you so much for your time. I will answer a few questions. Thank you for your time.

Chris Robinson: Thank you, Mukunda. And as noted, we’ll now be taking some questions you might have in the presentation. As a reminder, you can drop those into the questions box on your screen. If we don’t get to your questions, someone from Lux will be in touch after the webinar as well. So I see a couple of questions have come in. The first is about CDR markets, or carbon dioxide removal markets. How does utilization fit within CDR markets and the conversations surrounding them?

Mukunda Kaushik: Yeah, that’s a good question. And the first thing to note is that out of the different products that we saw, For the most part, it’s really cement that qualifies and fits into the CDR market because it offers permanence. So if a product does not offer permanent CO₂ storage, and we are talking about at least 1,000 years, it does not really play into the CDR market. So synthetic fuels will not play into the CDR market. CO₂ mineralization is a very strong contender for what we call a high-quality carbon credit. This means you can measure and validate that the CO₂ is being stored with low risk of CO₂ release and fewer measurement or regulatory complications. Those carbon credits are already being sold today from anywhere between $200 to $400 per ton, which is much cheaper than direct air capture today. And since cement is already at commercial scale, those costs can actually come down. Another important factor is that the feedstock—the CO₂—can be used directly to generate carbon credits. So if you’re an airline, do you take CO₂ from direct air capture, convert it into a fuel and then burn that fuel? Or do you just invest in direct air capture startup and buy DAC credits? No matter how low the cost of conversion of that CO₂ gets, it will always be cheaper to just buy the carbon credit than to produce e-SAF. So that’s again a big regulatory play. More recently, we’re starting to see biogenic CO₂ also get sequestered for carbon credits, as we spoke about. And that’s really important because the issue of double counting can be really important. So if you’re selling carbon credits from sequestering CO₂, but also using that CO₂ to produce a low-carbon product, that can be double counting. SAF mostly uses book-and-claim. So you’re essentially separating out the carbon intensity in the product itself. So companies need to be careful with how they engage and expect more scrutiny on transparency.

Chris Robinson: Excellent. And we have another question, probably the last one we have time for, about synthetic biology. So the question here is, you know, there’s basically how does the outlook of synthetic biology change the discussion of CDR markets and carbon utilization?

Mukunda Kaushik: Yeah, so synthetic biology in the context of CO₂ utilization has a stigma attached to it. And we essentially saw a lot of algae biofuel companies try to pivot into CO₂ utilization when the biofuels market didn’t really work out. And a lot of them ended up going out of business or couldn’t really scale. So typically synthetic biology in the context of CCU has the stigma that it’s not scalable. And that’s partly because companies were also trying to produce products with synthetic biology that needed a lot of scale. So bioethylene, for example, you can never scale synthetic biology to produce ethylene in the same scale as a steam cracker today. And that should not be the expectation either. So with synthetic biology in the context of CCU, it’s really important to target the right product. Companies and the industry are starting to figure that out. So producing products that don’t need a very large scale and also products that don’t need to be the sole feedstock supplier that can fit into a more distributed feedstock environment. For example, if I can produce bio oil from CO₂ that can feed into a HEFA facility, for example, that HEFA facility can source some CO₂-based bio oil, but it can also source used cooking oil and other forms of low-carbon bio-oil. So you’re not relying on synthetic biology or CCU necessarily to meet all the feedstock demand. So that’s some ways in which synthetic biology companies are evolving. And we expect to see more product-based differentiation because the main thing is that thermal catalysis and electrolysis cannot really get you past C2 because CO₂ is a very, very stable molecule, and it’s going to be very energy intensive. Synthetic biology is one way to break that C2 barrier, and companies are starting to do that. So we’re not saying it’s going to scale and be successful and come without challenges, but you should be monitoring it for a lot of product-based differentiation.

Chris Robinson: Excellent. Thank you very much for sharing, Mukunda. That concludes our webinar for today. The slide presentation and recording will be sent to all attendees via e-mail shortly. After leaving the webinar, you’ll be prompted to complete a short survey about today’s presentation. We do appreciate any feedback you may have. It helps inform and improve future webinars. With that, thank you for joining us, and have a great day.