Listen: In the air tonight: the genesis of DAC business models

View Full Transcript

Sam Humphreys:
Hey, it's Sam Humphreys here. I'm with Hill. How are you doing, Hill?

Hill Vaden:
Hi, I'm doing well, Sam. We've had a pretty good podcast this morning. Pretty complex topic.

Sam Humphreys:
Very complex topic. I hope we haven't messed up too much by our lack of understanding, but we spoke to Paola Perez Peña and James Gutman about direct air capture technology, or DAC technology. This is a fascinating topic. It's something that I don't know an awful lot about. It seems quite new, but what are some of the things that you think people should be listening out for?

Hill Vaden:
I guess the first thing people should listen out for is at the very end, and I'm going to put this plug up at the front, but Paola is doing a webinar open to the public on June 13th that she gives some information on toward the end of the podcast, and we can put information within our liner notes as well.
In terms of the technology itself, I think that this is one of these emerging embryonic technologies that is perhaps core to the whole net-zero ambitions world in its industries has of getting CO₂ out of the atmosphere, rather than preventing CO₂ from going into the atmosphere is a way that some other clean technologies do. Just kind of understanding the challenges to scale, the key drivers that I think James and Paola both flag, of cheap energy, access to geology for storage for conducive geology, and supportive policy as some of the main points. How about you?

Sam Humphreys:
Very similar things, and for me, it was just interesting to hear about the other version of storing CO₂ in the ground. They do a great job of explaining how that happens and what challenges there are to get this industry off the ground. I think it's something that we need to come back to maybe in a couple of months' time, just to dig down a little bit deeper into some of the policies that we're talking about that are emerging. Yeah, it's a good listen, it's a good talk, this one, so I hope everyone enjoys it.

Hill Vaden:
All right, we'll hand off.

Sam Humphreys:
Hello, and welcome to Energy Sense by S&P Global Commodity Insights, where we took all things related to the intersection of energy and finance. Today, we are talking to clean energy technology specialists, Paola Perez Peña, and James Gutman, about direct air capture technology. My name is Sam Humphreys, and I'm joined as always by Hill Vaden. Hill, how are you doing?

Hill Vaden:
Hi. I'm doing well. Sam, how are you?

Sam Humphreys:
I'm not bad, having slightly calmer weather here than you guys are over in Houston. There some crazy storms happening your way?

Hill Vaden:
It's calmer today. It was less calm yesterday, but it was calmer today, so we got a pretty good stretch of hours going.

Sam Humphreys:
Excellent, glad to hear it. Hello, Paola and James, how are you guys doing?

Paola Perez Peña:
Hi, Samantha and Hill. Thank you for having us. Very good.

James Gutman:
Yeah, thank you for having us on. This is a really exciting opportunity.

Sam Humphreys:
Fantastic. Well, it's great to have you. Today, I think I mentioned, we are talking about direct air capture technology. We have been talking a lot on this podcast about different forms of clean energy, so whether it's wind, solar, talking about emission abatement, but direct air capture technology is something that's maybe less talked about with us. Paola, it would be really great if you could kick us off and say, what is it? Where does it fit within the decarbonization story?

Paola Perez Peña:
Sure. Direct air capture technologies is basically pulling CO₂ from the air, and some people like to refer to it as a vacuum cleaner. You're pulling something that you don't like. It's similar to a vacuum cleaner. There are other analogies there, but I'm just going to put that as an example. It sounds pretty easy, but it's not. If we look at the CO₂ concentration in the air, it's very low. We're talking about 400 parts per million. That's approximate the concentration of CO₂ in the air.
To put this in perspective, imagine that you are in a soccer stadium, and it's completely full, let's say around capacity, 10,000 people, and you're trying to find four people in that stadium. That's what we're trying to deal with. That's what the equivalent of the CO₂ concentration will be. It's not easy. What is easier, though, is to avoid emitting CO₂, but we are not doing that. That's the reason why, actually, we are starting to talk more and more about direct air capture, in general, different ways to accelerate the removal of CO₂ from the air.
There are multiple models out there. I would like to bring the IPCC model, would mention that with high confidence, we will need to remove large scale CO₂ from the air to be able to get-

Sam Humphreys:
Sorry, what's IPCC methods? Sorry, you...
Paola Perez Peña:
Yeah, IPCC, it stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and it's basically a group of scientists that work together to advise policy makers. It's very well known in the industry, and what they do is they run different models, they run different scenarios on how to get to net-zero.
They've done this for many years, and in their latest report, they strongly suggest that we need to include the removal of CO₂ to be able to meet the climate goals. They actually use the word, it's unavoidable to not use removals to meet climate goals.

Hill Vaden:
The vacuum cleaner analogy, I'm picturing like a Dr. Seuss book, and putting a vacuum cleaner up into the sky to get out all the CO₂. I can vacuum my house, but it's harder to vacuum a much bigger place. James, can you help us understand the scale challenges around to oversimplify vacuuming the CO₂ out of the atmosphere?

James Gutman:
Just to visualize what it looks like, it doesn't look like a vacuum cleaner. It looks more like an air conditioner. There are these big metal boxes, and essentially, they have to be stacked on top of each other, and they create an array. The ones that currently are an operation, and there's a few that are, are essentially just these air conditioning units stacked on top of each other.
They have a cord, I guess, or a pipe, I should say, that once they suck up the CO₂, gets mixed with some kind of liquid, and then shot into the ground, where it's sequestered hopefully in perpetuity, or at least for a couple thousand years. The scale is a big issue, because currently, I think we need to get to five gigatons a year for this to actually make a dent. I think we're near maybe 10,000 tons a year.

Paola Perez Peña:
You're not wrong. We need to get to gigaton levels. Like how many gigatons? Well, it depends on who you ask, but you see estimations from one to two gigatons, all the way to 10 gigatons, so in the gigaton level scale. You're not wrong at all, we're in the thousands of current operational. 10,000 was the correct number if we were doing this podcast in April.
May, at the beginning of May, we had a big DAC plant starting operations that bring the operational nameplate capacity to 50,000. Really, really increase the capacity that is operational, and nameplate because they're just starting with few units operating, and they are expecting to have the plan fully operational by the end of 2024.
James Gutman:
This is a really interesting project. It's called The Mammoth, and it is based in Iceland, and it's being operated and developed by Climeworks. This is a very, very impressive project. There's a couple little pieces that you need to make it work. One is cheap energy, two is a place to store it, and I guess three is locality that is friendly to having this there. They put it in Iceland, they have cheap geo power, and they have a geological formation which allows them to sequester it.
Sam Humphreys:
Just on that, we've talked about the CO₂ being stored subsurface. For people listening, how does that differentiate from CCS, carbon capture and storage? Are they storing in depleted fields, saline aquifers, or is this within a pore space within a stratigraphic unit? Just to clarify how that's different.
Paola Perez Peña:
I'll say all of them. Let's start from the beginning. What is the difference? It's a great question, by the way. What is the difference between what is referred as CCS or CCUS versus direct air capture? Once again, it depends on who you ask, but most of the time when you are referring to CCS, you are referring to capturing CO₂ from a point source from an industrial.
Most of the projects that are classified as CCS will have some sort of CO₂ fossil-related project. That's on the capture side. You can capture CO₂ from the earth, which is pretty much going back in time. The CO₂ is already released in the atmosphere in the air, and you want to capture that, or you can capture the CO₂ in an industrial process. You're trying to capture it before it reach atmosphere to mitigate the climate issues. That's on the capture side.
I say it depends on who you ask, because these technologies are both capturing CO₂, sometimes they are classified under the same bucket. Just want to make sure that people understand there are different sources of CO₂, and this is important, because in many places in the world, the source of CO₂ is starting to matter. The other thing is, where is CO₂ going to be stored? Well, that also depends, and I think that's more of a broader, I would say, segment for both direct air capture and CCS, or capturing CO₂ from industrials.
CO₂ is a molecule and you can sequester it if there is a storage space underground. Either if it's a non-depleted reservoir, or a saline aquifer, or even if it's in a basaltic rock, which is what Climeworks is doing, they all have the same principle is looking at CO₂. What the direct air capture companies are doing is that they, because of their location, because where they are, they prefer to inject the CO₂ in some of these projects into basaltic rocks. What it happens is once you inject the CO₂, the CO₂ reacts with the minerals of these rock formations, and it gets mineralized and stored forever, or thousands of years, I'll say.
Direct air capture could also look at injecting CO₂ in depleted reservoirs or saline aquifers. Actually, that's what some of these companies are looking into. You need a mix of different things, as James said, we need cheap energy, we need sometimes weather conditions that are favorable for the technology, and you also need to store, the storage part. If you are close to a saline formation or depleted reservoir, you're probably going to start looking into that.
Hill Vaden:
We're looking cheap energy, a place to store. Where are some other places, James? You mentioned, I think it was Climeworks, so much early pioneering going on. Can you mention a little bit more what's happening outside of Iceland, if anything is happening outside of Iceland?
James Gutman:
The Biden administration wants the US to be a leader in this technology, and they have put money towards two projects, one in Louisiana and one in Texas. Those are being led by one company called Heirloom, and another called Carbon Engineering. Now, I want to go back to the technology thing, because the energy piece is interesting. It's not just running the vacuum, which requires a lot of the energy, and it's really cool to actually understand how the technology works.
You have to have a chemical reaction. You have the fan going, it pulls in the air, ambient air, and you have to have basically a sponge react with the air, and that takes the CO₂. Either it's a liquid sponge or it's a solid sponge. Then, so now you have this sponge with all this CO₂ in it. How do you get that into the ground? Well, you have to heat it up, and this is the big issue with DACs, that there's incredible amount of energy required to do that.
Texas, Louisiana, you also need to have renewable energy. This is going to be the other issue is that you can't just have a coal plant running, and then using the plant from the coal, the power from the coal plant to power the DAC. You have to have it renewable, or else you're just polluting one area, and then sucking it up in another. These are some of the challenges.
Paola Perez Peña:
You need multiple, yeah, you need multiple sources of energy, and what James is mentioning is kind of one of the pioneer kind of flagship projects, but really, when you look at the technology, it's starting to look more complex than just that. For example, to capture CO₂, James was saying, it's a sponge. It is like you can have a CO₂-grabbing chemical that it dissolves in liquid, but you can also have a solid material with CO₂ chemicals that grab the CO₂.
Now, there are companies also looking into membranes, so that you have a membrane and you can pass the CO₂ or the air, and then separate the CO₂, or even looking into temperature differentials, very low, low, low temperature could actually lead to phase separation, and you can actually grab the CO₂. It's starting to become a little bit more complex, and also, on the side of what we call regeneration, right? Regeneration is once you capture the CO₂, you need to liberate the CO₂ to reuse the material.
That could use high temperatures, it could use low temperatures. With low temperatures, you're looking at renewable energy as an option. With high temperatures, you're looking at natural gas or other type of thermal inputs, but you're also looking into electrochemical approaches. Once you start putting all these in front of you, and then you realize that they're all mixing and matching, then you end up with a very, very complex technology map, with a lot of companies that are looking into develop this technology in a cheap way really quickly.
It's starting to become a little bit more complex than the find that James mentioned, and the projects that we've seen are moving ahead. There's a lot going on, and it's starting to look a little bit different. It's interesting to track the market.
James Gutman:
I'm just going to jump in here and just to say, you asked what projects are going on, the issue is that a lot of the projects are still in prototype, and so Climeworks is really the leader in that they've actually developed and they have working somewhat commercial scale units operating, whereas a lot of the other companies kind of have prototypes or tests.
Paola Perez Peña:
Yeah, and you have a Stratus as well, which is under construction, very, very big direct air capture plant, that if it becomes operational next year, it will again increase the DAC operational capacity 10 times. That's Oxy.
Hill Vaden:
Okay, yeah.
Paola Perez Peña:
Yeah, Occidental with Carbon Engineering.
Hill Vaden:
I was waiting for Occidental Petroleum to get mentioned.
James Gutman:
When I talked about Carbon Engineering, I actually meant the company that acquired them, which is Oxy. This kind of gives a good place to pause and imagine what the DAC market looks like. I would take the market into three kind of silos. The first would be just developers. These are people who don't have labs. They're finding technologies, and they're finding the finance, and they're getting these projects built.
The second would be original equipment manufacturers, OEMs. These are people that, let's say, they could be an incubator, they're coming out of universities, they might be PhDs who have an idea, and they're coming up with technologies, and they're coming up with the units. They might be working with the developers to put something together. Then the third are these hybrid OEM developers. Here, we have Climeworks, we have Avnos, and we have Occidental Carbon Engineering.
Paola Perez Peña:
Yeah, and I think leading, it's a tricky way to define these companies. It depends on what you describe as a leading company. Is it based on the projects that are operational? Is it based on the projects that are under construction? Is the TRL of the technology?
I'll say if we're looking into the TRL of the technology, definitely 1.5 with Occidental and Carbon Engineering, Climeworks, Global Thermostat and Carbon Capture, Inc. are the ones that are getting closer to that TRL, the commercial status, of course, with 1.5 in Climeworks leading the way, as they are very close to making a lot of these large scale DAC projects operational, and Clime, which is already doing it.
Hill Vaden:
One quick, I think Sam's about to ask a question, but I have one, TRL? What does that stand for?
Paola Perez Peña:
Technology Readiness Level. It is funny, it comes from NASA, and it's a way with the energy industry, and many industries use it to identify how far are you from lab to commercialization? They hire the TRL the closer you are to commercialization.
Sam Humphreys:
I've got a question, and probably a question within a question. You've talked about this really complicated structure of companies that are involved in this, and then you've mentioned Oxy and Climeworks.
What we've seen in the CCS space is a lot of these independent small-scale companies establishing, and then they're being either bought out or invested into with shareholder investors by traditional energy power companies, so whether it's an oil major or whoever. Is that something that we are starting to see in this space, or what we think could happen? I'll just leave it there for now, because that's enough of a question.
James Gutman:
This is a great question, and something I've been thinking about a lot. We have entered a period where DAC is moving a little bit beyond just kind of a nascent VC market, where large companies are, like Climeworks, Carbon Engineering even before they got bought, as examples, are highly capitalized, they've raised some of these companies have raised in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, and they are able now to start even buying the smaller ones.
I'm talking about the hybrid companies, these OEM developers, and you're starting to see them actually acquire the smaller OEMs that are emerging. Still, most of the transactions that we're seeing are startup VC funding, and these would be OEMs, again, coming from those incubators, universities. Those are getting purchased by these bigger companies now, or they're getting funded by, you're seeing a lot of money coming in from either airlines, and we'll talk about why that is later, and by oil companies.
Oil companies definitely have a big interest, and kind of like the headline transaction in the DAC industry was this $1.1 billion acquisition of Occidental Petroleum of Carbon Engineering, which was this British Columbia Squamish-based direct air capture company, which had, I guess, a really exciting technology. That's kind of been one of the big kind of transactions, which has really shaken up the industry. You have very, very small kind of funding rounds relatively to this, which is a huge number.
Hill Vaden:
Question, Paola, for you. We've talked before, you and I, about the venture capital valley of death, where you've got a lot of ideas from, this isn't just energy, this is just venture capital as a whole, where you've got a lot of i-
Paola Perez Peña:
I love that chart, by the way.
Hill Vaden:
You've got a lot of ideas that revenues still have not exceeded costs. A lot of within VC, most of the good ideas fail, and the good ideas are so good that they pay off the bad ideas. If a lot of these clean energy technologies, and DAC prep being one of them, is sitting in the valley of death today, how do we cross that X-axis and get into the revenues exceeding costs?
This sounds like a really high call on energy, so you're using more energy to power the DAC business model. How do you make money out of it, and how do you start scaling in the way that venture capital projects move into profitability?
Paola Perez Peña:
That's a great question. How do you make money off the AC? That's a question that is in everybody's mind. First, I need to say that the AC is still in very early stage of development, so it's getting a lot of press because of the targets that we need to hit. Let's keep in mind that this is very early stage of development. All of these developers that are still trying to figure out how the plan works before they're looking into, "Okay, let's make money." Let's keep that clear.
Now, in terms of what needs to happen once these projects are operating to make more projects happen, there are a few things. Right now, the way that the market is getting the money from is using carbon dioxide purchase agreements. What that is is like private corporations coming in and buying CO₂ credits from these projects. They want to do it, and they're willing to pay the price of whatever the developer has in mind, just because the corporations want to claim that climate benefit.
That's how right now the market is moving. It's a very short-term demand signal, where you can actually look into the economics and make sense of the economics, so you have enough corporations buying the CO₂ credits. That's, for example, some of the small projects are actually moving ahead because of that, because the demand is so high, when you have small projects, you can make the sense out of that, the economics work out of that.
That's how these projects are actually going to move ahead in small scale. Long-term, what does it need? What do we need to move ahead? The thing is policy. We really need policy. Why policy? Policy provides a long-term demand signal for these projects. These are very expensive projects, and it's no surprise that's what they sell CO₂ at such a high cost. We're talking about between $400 to $2,000 per ton of CO₂. That's very, very high numbers, and they're getting buyers, but there are just so many buyers that can't afford this.
We need to scale the technology. You've seen in other technologies, as you scale, costs come down and you get more buyers. The only way to do that is with clear demand signals and policy in place. The good news is that policy seems to be moving that way, but we can talk about in a little bit.
James Gutman:
I feel like this is a good point. I'm going to intervene and maybe press Paola on the numbers here, because I have a rough idea. One CPA, carbon purchase agreement, which was public, was I believe JP Morgan, and they signed a couple year deal. Paola, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to think about this on a per ton basis, they were essentially paying $800 per ton of CO₂ captured. This is because JP Morgan wants to meet a net-zero target.
You have all these companies' net-zero targets, "Hey, let's buy some CO₂." There's different ways they can do it. A lot of times, people are like, "Hey, let's do forestry." You could buy a forestry credit for five bucks or something very, very cheap. It's a very measurable thing. You're capturing CO₂, you're shoving it in the ground. No investor can sue you and be like, "Hey, you're lying about your net-zero target." We've done it. It's in the ground. We have this $800 revenue thing, and it's going to be for 10 years.
10 years, $800 per ton, let's say 10,000 tons a year that they're paying some company to capture. The question is, can these DAC companies bring down the cost on a per ton basis to such a level that it's below $800 a ton? Paola, you can maybe speak to where they're at now in terms of what the average cost per ton is to capture.
Paola Perez Peña:
See, the thing is the average cost of capturing CO₂ from the air varies a lot, because we have a lot of first of a kind projects. If you're talking about, let's see, a project that is looking into removing CO₂ from the area with raw materials that are already in place, already have a value chain and low temperature, so you could see a thousand, $2,000. If you ask companies that are under construction with these heat plants, like 1.5, they may get probably around four to $500 per ton of CO₂.
It's a range, and it just kind of speaks of how nascent this technology still is, right? We've seen crazy numbers. When I saw the numbers, I asked myself, "Is somebody going to buy this?" Then you see these carbon purchase agreements for 10 years for thousands of tons of CO₂, and then you're like, "Okay, well, people are willing to pay this."
They see the value in direct air capture, because it's measurable, because it's durable. You can store the CO₂, it's flexible in location, you can move the DAC plant, wherever it's needed, and it's easier to verify. All those things are really making some of these buyers more attracted to DAC projects, even though they're expensive. Now, can we reduce the cost? I think the answer to that is that yes. You've seen in the past, when you have a first-of-a-kind project, usually the second-of-a-kind, third-of-a-kind, we'll see cost reduction.
We're expecting to see as the market scale up, cost reductions are going to be there. The question will be, how quickly can we scale up to reduce those costs so we can bring more buyers? Buyers right now are airlines, they are tech companies, and financial. A lot of them are like, they have deep pockets, but then how many of those do we have in the market? That's when I say policy needs to be in place to work down the cost reduction curve.
Sam Humphreys:
I'm just going to ask this quickly. You mentioned these 10 year, for example, agreements. At the moment, are these all long-term agreements, or are we seeing any short-term, year-on-year agreements? Is it very much a trend of companies committing to a significant plant for a significant amount of time? How is that working at the moment?
Paola Perez Peña:
Yeah, no, you'll see different durations, it can go from three years to 10 years. When it goes more than a year, we classify as a carbon purchase agreement. If it's a one-time buy, which that happens as well, that's just like a transaction. We just don't count that as a kind of purchase agreement. If it's two or more years, we classify it as that. Now, usually what we've seen is between three to 10 years, that's kind of like where the market is going.
It really depends on the buyer's strategy. Some buyers buy only three years just to see. I think they want to see how the technology develops before they buy more. They are signing these kind of agreements where you're like, "Okay, I buy you CO₂ for the next five years, but there are conditions." You have to make sure that after that fifth year, your cost is going to reduce by X amount. If that happens, then I'm going to extend my contract with you. It's quite dynamic, and I'll say it depends a lot of the buyer appetite and what they're trying to do.
James Gutman:
It's kind of interesting place to jump in here to what is creating these markets? We talked about airlines, and essentially, airlines are basically being regulated to decarbonize their operation. One thing that they can do is use SAF, sustainable aviation fuel, but have enough sustainable aviation fuel to power the whole industry. This is essentially a zero carbon fuel.
You would probably need another planet. There's just not enough material to create enough SAF to power all the planes. If you're an airline, and airlines realize this, Airbus, Air Canada, these are some of these companies that have, within the aviation industry who have made investments in DAC, they're putting money and they're buying these credits. They anticipate that if they're going to be saying they have a net-zero target and that they're meeting it, they have to do this.
Hill Vaden:
We like to finish looking at the near-term future, so things to watch over the next six, 12 months. We'll ask each of you, but Paola, I'm going to start with you. One, I think there's something that we need to watch on June 13th that is, other than the Tesla shareholder vote, that there's something else happening on June 13th. Aside-
Paola Perez Peña:
Very important as well.
Hill Vaden:
Inclusive of that, can you describe what that is? Then if both of you could give examples of things that we could watch within the DAC technology that are important signals for us over the next six, 12 months. Paola, go first, and then James, please.
Paola Perez Peña:
That's funny, because I was going to mention the near term, we need to look into this public webinar that we're leading on June 13th. Just please keep that in mind. If you think that this was an interesting topic, we're going to be touching on some of these topics, trends for carbon dioxide removal markets, where are the demand, where are the buyers, the cost, but also looking into more detail of direct air capture technology, some of the projects, what are the purchase agreements looking like?
The technologies, as I mentioned, is very complex. We're trying to map the technology so we understand who is who, and how far along we are in terms of the development. A lot happening there, and it's open to the public, so hopefully you guys can join. Besides that, sorry, a little bit of a longer term for DAC, what we need to watch for, a few things. On the policy side, there is a lot happening. Europe is actually leading the way on putting policy frameworks in place for carbon dioxide removals. That includes direct air capture, but also other methods.
They are putting out what is called a carbon removal certification framework. It's a framework where you have a clear way to certify an account the CO₂ removals of a project. This is an official government entity, kind of like tracking if these projects are really removing the CO₂ that they need to. That's one thing we need to watch for. The other thing is UK looking into adding removals in their carbon pricing. This is huge, because we didn't have that before.
If they are, and this is in the consultation phase, but if this moves ahead, again, it's one of those long-term demand signals that we're expecting to see for these projects to move quickly ahead. In terms of not policy, but the voluntary agreements and voluntary activity, there is also a lot happening there. As I said, short term, the market is really driven by corporations, but still, these corporations, they need an in-house group of experts to quantify how much CO₂ is going to be removed.
What is happening in the voluntary carbon markets is that there are these verification entities or registries that are developing methodologies that are standardized to make sure that the accounting of CO₂, it's verified and it can be supervised. A lot of these methodologies are developing that didn't exist before. If you were a buyer, you don't only have to pay for the various expensive project, the DAC cost, but you also have to have an in-house expert to look at that.
Now, with this verification and methodologies, that's going to be easier, and it's going to probably going to open the market for other buyers. Those are the things to watch for.
James Gutman:
I will say, the two things I think that need to be watched for is one, what's going to happen with the SEC climate rules? If these get enforced, companies who are getting investment from pension funds or big asset managers are going to need to disclose what their GHG emissions are. If they have investors who have net-zero targets, then that's going to create an additional market for DAC. Seeing what that happens in the next six to 12 months is going to be interesting.
Then the other thing which I think is interesting is energy prices. We see them going up, and unless they peak and fall, this is going to create a lot of issue for DAC, which is an energy-intensive technology. If I'm an energy infrastructure investor looking at DAC, if I'm a company looking at DAC, I'm thinking about merchant tail risk. What's the cost of this going to be when this CPA runs out? What's the cost of this going to be in five, 10 years?
We need some kind of signal as to what energy is going to be in the horizon. I think with the build-out and what could possibly happen with the IRA in the next six to 12 months, and what the grid is going to look like into the future is really important for how people plan these projects.
Sam Humphreys:
Cool. Just a reminder to our listeners, if you've liked what you've heard, remember to like and subscribe to the episode. If you want any more advice or solutions, you can find it at SPGlobal.com/commodityinsights.