Johnson Matthey’slow emission methanol

Andrew Fenwick, Methanol Market Manager, Johnson Matthey

Inspiring science, enhancing life

A world that’s cleaner and healthier;today and for future generations

Syngas and methanol technology (and catalysts) are and will play a pivotal role in tackling climate change and transitioning to a net zero carbon future.

2

3

Decarbonization goals are being set … uncertainty on how to achieve them

According to B&V's 2021 Corporate Sustainability Goal Setting and Measurement report more than 80% of companies surveyed with revenues >$250m have set decarbonization goals, yet 25% have set goals at a level where they are unsure how they will meet them

80%of companies set decarbonization

goals

68%without full

knowledge of how to achieve goals

4

JM is involved at all stages of developmentPotential routes to methanol

This diagram is for discussion only and does not constitute an offer of technology.Biomethanol produced from waste/biomass fermentation (green) is not included in diagram.

or electrification

catalytic processes

with CCS

Waste and Biomass

electrolysis

Fossil Fuels

H2, CO, CO2

CH3OH

CH3OHH2, CO, CO2

CH3OH

synthesis

Fossil Fuels

reforming + CCS

reforming/ gasification

+ CO2

CO2 hydrogenation (‘blue H2’ route)

+ CO2

H2

H2 Water

Fuel

ChemicalsHeavy-duty

transport, aviation, heating, industrial applications, etc.

H2emissions control

USES

Clean Energy

steam reforming with CCS

CO2: Non-renewable: captured CO2 from from fossil-fuel based process (refineries, chemicals, steel making, power generation, etc.) Renewable: captured from air (Direct Air Capture) or from combustion/processing of biomass

CO2

CO2

methanolsyngas route

(Bio-methanol)

+ CO2

+ CO2

(e-methanol route)

Traditional

Insert footer here 5

Carbon Capture & Storage• CO2 recovery cost is $32–122 tCO2

(1) for a natural gas plant

• Pre-combustion CO2 on the syngas or

• Post combustion CO2 capture on the reformer, boiler or fired heater fluegasCost is thought to be more expensive than pre-combustion1

Requires suitable geology in which to safely inject / CO2 pipeline infrastructure will need to be built

• Cost of compression and storage depends on distance to storage

• Tax rebates are available in the US

• Could earn extra revenue with EOR

Electrification• Most natural gas plants are ~ steam

balanced.

• Big power users are compressors

• Natural Gas

• Syngas

• Circulator

• ASU compressor

To incorporate as much low carbon electrical power as possible, need to remove steam generation by changing the flowsheet

low emissions methanolNatural gas to methanol flowsheet

Starting Assumptions:• Green H2 is sparingly available, as cost prohibitive except in certain locations• CO2 emissions taxation will become increasingly expensive

Source: 1 - Carbon sequestration—Technology-based solutions cost overview, IHS Markit, May 2021

low emissions methanol – by CCSSMR+ATR

6

low emissions methanol – by CCSATR only

7

low emissions methanol – by electrificationGHR+ATR

8

9

low emissions methanolKey advantages of the JM GHR+ATR process

Highly efficient process and low capital expenditure

Low natural gas usage per unit of methanol – so reduced upstream

emissions

Lowest amount of CO2

produced per unit of methanol

Intensified plot plan to maximise MeOH production per m2

of land

No carbon capture, so ideal for

units that do not have access to CO2

pipelines

All motor drives, so low cooling water

usage

10

JM’s low emissions methanol will reduce well to tank emissions by 55-70%

JM’s GHR/ATR is the lowest CO2 emissions of any commercial natural gas flowsheet, without CCS

Emissions factors utilised (1)

• Nat gas = 2.4 kgCO2e/GJ

• Renewable electricity mix = 82.8 kgCO2e/MWh (23 gCO2e/MJ)

Well to tank – indicative example

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

SMR/ATR ATR GHR/ATR SMR/ATR+CCS ATR+CCS

kgCO

2e/k

g M

eOH

Production NG extraction ElectricityNote 1: JM used the emission factors for natural gas & a renewable electricity mix, as reported in source Methanol as a marine fuel: Environmental benefits, technology readiness, and economic feasibility, International Maritime Organisation (IMO), Report No.: 2015-1197, Rev 2, Date: 20.01.2016, DNV GL Maritime, Environmental advisory

low emissions methanol

11

JM’s GHR+ATR flowsheet has the lowest levelised cost of production

Simplified Levelised cost of production

SMR/ATR ATR GHR/ATR

OPEX $/t 156 156 154

Levelised CAPEX $/t 116 115 117

TOTAL $/t 272 271 271

SMR/ATR+CCS

ATR+CCS

OPEX $/t 162 163

Levelised CAPEX $/t 129 128

TOTAL $/t 291 290

low emissions methanol

12

Lowest CO2 emissions of any commercial natural gas flowsheet, without expensive and complex CCS

As electrical grids will turn greener, JM GHR/ATR flowsheet is the best future proof solution for natural gas based methanol

Delivered through decades of experience

JM GHR+ATR technology – lowest carbon emission methanol flowsheet from natural gas, in the absence of carbon capture

13

towards net zeroJM methanol

Key takeaways

14

Natural gas based methanol production urgently needs to reduce its CO2 emissions

JM’s GHR/ATR also offers lowest levelized cost of CO2production of all low emission methanol technologies

JM’s GHR/ATR avoids high cost and complexity of CCS

JM offers a suite of low emission methanol technologies, with and without CCS

Aligned to our vision for

a cleaner, healthier

world

JM is well positioned in syngas to deliver and become a key enabler of the energy transition

Thank you for listening& thank you to my colleague Madhan Janardhanan for his help in the preparation of this presentation

Andrew.Fenwick@matthey.com

Confidential15