ExxonMobil, Worley to bring low-carbon hydrogen project to Baytown

big deal

The facility in Baytown is expected to produce 28.3 million cubic meters of low-carbon hydrogen daily. Photo via exxonmobil.com

ExxonMobil selected Australia-based engineering and professional services company Worley to provide engineering, procurement and construction services for a proposed hydrogen and ammonia production facility in Baytown, which is expected to have a production capacity of 1 billion cubic feet of blue hydrogen per day. ExxonMobil expects the facility will be the largest of its kind in the world.

“We are delighted to continue our strategic, global relationship with ExxonMobil in its execution of upcoming projects, particularly in delivering this EPC project on the US Gulf Coast, which contributes significantly to strengthening Worley’s backlog,” Chris Ashton, CEO of Worley, states, according to Offshore Energy.

The facility in Baytown is expected to produce 28.3 million cubic meters (1 billion cubic feet) of low-carbon hydrogen daily and nearly 1 million metric tonnes (more than 1 million tons) of ammonia per year, which will also capture more than 98 percent of the associated CO2 emissions.

The facility will leverage advanced carbon capture and storage technologies to reduce emissions associated with hydrogen production. ExxonMobile also said its carbon capture and storage system would be available for use by third-party CO2 emitters in the area.

A final investment decision is expected in 2025 , and an anticipated startup in 2029. “Blue” hydrogen is expected to be a top energy driver in 2025 according to global consultancy Wood Mackenzie who predicts that at least three large-scale blue hydrogen projects in the U.S will reach FID by next year.

The company hopes the new facility will help in creating U.S. jobs and supporting community development initiatives throughout the Houston area, and the state.

The new initiative will take stranded natural gas and turn it into hydrogen. Photo via Getty Images

New York financial firm partners with Houston O&G co. to turn natural gas into blue hydrogen

teamwork

A new partnership between an energy and sustainability investor and a Houston-based company that focuses on cleaner solutions in the oil and gas industry will look into turning stranded natural gas into blue hydrogen.

New York-based Double Zero Holdings and SJ Environmental announced their new partnership this week in an effort to move forward the energy transition. According to the companies, stranded natural gas — mostly methane — usually remains unused where it is not economically viable to transport. By turning these gasses into into blue hydrogen, "the partnership mitigates methane and CO2 emissions while producing hydrogen—a clean fuel that could revolutionize multiple industries," reads the news release.

The initiative will use existing technologies, which can be reduced to the size of a standard shipping container, per the release.

"We're thrilled to partner with SJ Environmental to tackle one of the most pressing environmental issues today," Raja Ramachandran, managing partner of Double Zero Holdings, says in the release. "This collaboration allows us to turn stranded natural gas—a significant environmental liability—into a valuable resource, supporting the global shift toward cleaner energy."

The plan is to lower the amount of natural gas left wasted and provide a low-carbon alternative across transportation, manufacturing, and power generation.

"Our collaboration with Double Zero Holdings reflects our commitment to innovative, sustainable solutions," SJ Environmental Director John Chappell adds. "Together, we're setting a new standard for energy production, delivering hydrogen and food-grade CO₂ where natural gas would typically be flared."

Blue, green, gold — what do all the colors of hydrogen even mean? Photo via Getty Images

Hydrogen's many colors, Houston companies that are focused on it, and more

Guest column

Repeated association of specific colors in defined contexts deeply reinforces themes in the human brain. It’s why most students and alumni of Texas A&M University scoff at the sight of burnt orange, and you’d be hard-pressed to find the home of a Longhorn adorned in shades of crimson or maroon.

The color-coding of hydrogen energy production exemplifies one such ambiguous classification methodology, as the seemingly innocuous labeling of hydrogen as green (for hydrogen produced from renewable sources) and black (for hydrogen produced from coal) initially helped to quickly discern which sources of hydrogen are environmentally friendly or not.

But the coding system quickly became more complicated, as the realization that hydrogen extracted from natural gas (aka grey hydrogen) or coal (again, black hydrogen, or sometimes, brown hydrogen, depending on the carbon content and energy density of the source coal) could be extracted in a less harmful way, by introducing methods of carbon capture and storage.

These cleaner methods for hydrogen extraction earned the lofty color coding of blue, just one shade away from green in the rainbow spectrum and a safe distance from the less delightful and inspiring colors grey, brown, and black.

Then along came pyrolysis — a method for producing hydrogen through methane cracking, plainly, the decomposition of methane, CH₄, into solid carbon and hydrogen gas, without the introduction of oxygen. This method results in significantly less (if any) creation of carbon dioxide as a by-product. Logic would lead one to categorize this process with a color that lies further away from black than exalted cousin, green hydrogen.

However, the solid carbon that remains after pyrolysis retains over one-third of the original energy available from methane and could tip the GHG scales negatively if not utilized in an environmentally responsible manner, so it’s not a clear-cut winner in the game of lower-carbon energy production. Thus, it is nestled between green and blue and often referred to as “turquoise hydrogen” production.

Other hydrogen production methods — pink, purple, and red — defy rainbow logic as they have all proven to result in higher GHG emissions than the original “clean” queen, green hydrogen, despite following a similar electrolysis process to separate hydrogen and oxygen from one another in its original composition as water. The source of electricity used in the electrolysis process determines the color-code here, as pink hydrogen is generated from nuclear power, red hydrogen is generated from nuclear thermal power, and purple hydrogen is generated from a combination of nuclear power and nuclear thermal power.

Yellow hydrogen seems to not yet have found a clear definition. Some argue it refers to green hydrogen produced exclusively from solar-powered electrolysis, while others claim it to be the child of mixed green/gray hydrogen. Artists should probably keep a far distance from this conversation, unless the energy produced from the steam coming out of their ears could perform electrolysis more cleanly than any of the green hydrogen solutions.

Finally, we have white hydrogen, the naturally occurring, zero-carbon emitting, plentiful element found in the earth’s crust – which is also the least understood of all the hydrogen extraction methodologies.

Remember, hydrogen is the first element in the periodic table, meaning it’s density is very low. Hydrogen knows no bounds, and once it escapes from its natural home, it either floats off into outer space or attaches itself to another element to form a more containable compound, like water.

Many believe white hydrogen to be the unquestionable solution to a lower-carbon energy future but there is still much to be understood. Capturing, storing, and transporting white hydrogen remain mostly theoretical, despite recent progress, which includes one recently announced Houston lab dedicated to hydrogen transport. Another Houston company, Syzygy has raised millions with its light-based catalyst for hydrogen production.

For example, Cemvita, a local Houston chemical manufacturing company, predicts a future powered by gold hydrogen: white hydrogen sourced from depleted oil and gas wells. Many wildcatters believe strongly in a new era of exploration for white hydrogen using techniques refined in oil and gas exploration, including reservoir analysis, drilling, and fracking.

Without a doubt, investigating further the various hydrogen extraction theories is surely a craveable new challenge for the sciences. But perhaps the current color-coding nomenclature for hydrogen needs refinement, as well.

Unless used in the scientific context of wavelength, color-based labels represent an ambiguous classification tool, as the psychology of color depends on modern societal norms. The association of colors with the various hydrogen production methodologies does very little to distinguish the climate impact each method produces. Additionally, the existing categorizations do not consider any further distribution or processing of the produced hydrogen — a simple fact that could easily negate any amount of cleanliness implied by the various production methods — and a topic for a future article.

For now, hydrogen represents one of the front-running sources for a lower-carbon energy future, but it’s up to you if that’s best represented by a blue ribbon, gold medal, white star, or cold-hard greenbacks.

------

Lindsey Ferrell is a contributing writer to EnergyCapitalHTX and founder of Guerrella & Co.

Scott Nyquist debates both sides of the hydrogen argument in this week’s ECHTX Voices of Energy guest column. Photo courtesy of Aramco.

Will 2023 be hydrogen’s year?

GUEST COLUMN

Yes and no.

Yes, because there is real money, and action, behind it.

Globally, there are 600 projects on the books to build electrolyzers, which separate the oxygen and hydrogen in water, and are critical to creating low-emissions “green hydrogen.” That investment could drive down the cost of low-emissions hydrogen, making it cost competitive with conventional fuels—a major obstacle to its development so far.

In addition, oil companies are interested, too. The industry already uses hydrogen for refining; many see hydrogen as supplemental to their existing operations and perhaps, eventually, supplanting them. In the meantime, it helps them to decarbonize their refining and petrochemical operations, which most of the majors have committed to doing.

Indeed, hydrocarbon-based companies and economies could have a big opportunity in “blue hydrogen,” which uses fossil fuels for production, but then captures and stores emissions. (“Green hydrogen” uses renewables; because it is expensive to produce, it is more distant than blue. “Gray hydrogen” uses fossil fuels, without carbon capture; this accounts for most current production and use.) Oil and gas companies have a head start on related infrastructure, such as pipelines and carbon capture, and also see new business opportunities, such as low-carbon ammonia.

Houston, for example, which likes to call itself the "energy capital of the world,” is going big on hydrogen. The region is well suited to this. It has an extensive pipeline infrastructure, an excellent port system, a pro-business culture, and experience. The Greater Houston Partnership and McKinsey—both of whom I am associated with—estimate that demand for hydrogen will grow 6 to 8 percent a year from 2030 to 2050. No wonder Houston wants a piece of that action.

There are promising, near-term applications for hydrogen, such as ammonia, cement, and steel production, shipping, long-term energy storage, long-haul trucking, and aviation. These bits and pieces add up: steel alone accounts for about 8 percent of global carbon-dioxide emissions. Late last year, Airbus announced it is developing a hydrogen-powered fuel cell engine as part of its effort to build zero-emission aircraft. And Cummins, a US-based engine company, is investing serious money in hydrogen for trains and commercial and industrial vehicles, where batteries are less effective; it already has more than 500 electrolyzers at work.

Then there is recent US legislation. The Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 allocated $9.5 billion funding for hydrogen. Much more important, though, was last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, which contains generous tax credits to promote hydrogen production. The idea is to narrow the price gap between clean hydrogen and other, more emissions-intensive technologies; in effect, the law seeks to fundamentally change the economics of hydrogen and could be a true game-changer.

This is not without controversy: some Europeans think this money constitutes subsidies that are not allowed under trade rules. For its part, Europe has the hydrogen bug, too. Its REPowerEU plan is based on the idea of “hydrogen-ready infrastructure,” so that natural gas projects can be converted to hydrogen when the technology and economics make sense.

So there is a lot of momentum behind hydrogen, bolstered by the ambitious goals agreed to at the most recent climate conference in Egypt. McKinsey estimates that hydrogen demand could reach 660 million tons by 2050, which could abate 20 percent of total emissions. Total planned production for lower-emission green and blue hydrogen through 2030 has reached more than 26 million metric tons annually—quadruple that of 2020.

No, because major issues have not been figured out.

The plans in the works, while ambitious, are murky. A European official, asked about the REPowerEU strategy, admitted that “it’s not clear how it will work.” The same can be said of the United States. The hydrogen value chain, particularly for green hydrogen, requires a lot of electricity, and that calls for flexible grids and much greater capacity. For the United States to reach its climate goals, the grid needs to grow an estimated 60 percent by 2030.That is not easy: just try siting new transmission lines and watch the NIMBY monsters emerge.

Permitting can be a nightmare, often requiring separate approvals from local, state, interstate, and federal authorities, and from different authorities for each (air, land, water, endangered species, and on and on); money does not solve this. Even a state like Texas, which isn’t allergic to fossil fuels and has a relatively light regulatory touch, can get stuck in permitting limbo. Bill Gates recently noted that “over 1,000 gigawatts worth of potential clean energy projects [in the United States] are waiting for approval—about the current size of the entire U.S. grid—and the primary reason for the bottleneck is the lack of transmission.”

Then there is the matter of moving hydrogen from production site to market. Pipeline networks are not yet in place and shifting natural gas pipelines to hydrogen is a long way off. Liquifying hydrogen and transporting is expensive. In general, because hydrogen is still a new industry, it faces “chicken or egg” problems that are typical of the difficulties big innovations face, such as connecting hydrogen buyers to hydrogen producers and connecting carbon emitters to places to store the carbon dioxide. These challenges add to the complexity of getting projects financed.

Finally, there is money. McKinsey estimates that getting on track to that 600 million tons would require investment of $950 billion by 2030; so far, $240 billion has been announced.

Where I stand: in the middle.

I believe in hydrogen’s potential. More than 3 years ago, I wrote about hydrogen, arguing that while there had been real progress, “many things need to happen, in terms of policy, finance, and infrastructure, before it becomes even a medium-sized deal.” Now, some of those things are happening.

So, I guess I land somewhere in the middle. I think 2023 will see real progress, in decarbonizing refining and petrochemicals operations and producing ammonia, specifically. I am also optimistic that a number of low-emissions electrolysis projects will move ahead. And while such advances might seem less than transformative, they are critical: hydrogen, whether blue or green, needs to prove itself, and 2023 could be the year it does.

Because I take hydrogen’s potential seriously, though, I also see the barriers. If it is to become the big deal its supporters believe it could be, that requires big money, strong engineering and construction project management, sustained commitment, and community support. It’s easy to proclaim the wonders of the hydrogen economy; it’s much more difficult to devise sensible business models, standardized contracts, consistent incentives, and a regulatory system that doesn’t drive producers crazy. But all this matters—a lot.

My conclusion: there will be significant steps forward in 2023—but take-off is still years away.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Buoyed by $1.3B sales backlog, microgrid company ERock files for IPO

eyeing ipo

Another energy company in Houston is going public amid a flurry of energy IPOs.

Houston-based ERock Inc., which specializes in utility-grade onsite microgrid systems for data centers and other customers, has filed paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to sell its shares on the New York Stock Exchange.

The ERock filing follows the recent $1.9 billion IPO of Houston-based Fervo Energy, a provider of geothermal power that’s now valued at $7.7 billion.

Another Houston energy company, EagleRock Land, just went public in a $320 million IPO that values the company at $3 billion. EagleRock owns or controls about 236,000 acres in the Permian Basin, earning money from royalties, fees, easements, water services and other revenue streams tied to drilling on its land.

According to Barron’s, more than a dozen energy and energy-related companies in the U.S. have gone public since the beginning of 2025, with the bulk of the IPOs happening this year.

ERock’s SEC filing doesn’t identify the per-share pricing range for the IPO or the number of Class A shares to be offered. ERock is a portfolio company of Energy Impact Partners, a New York City-based venture capital and private equity firm that invests in energy companies.

The company previously did business as Enchanted Rock. ERock Inc., formed in January, will function as a holding company that controls predecessor company ER Holdings Ltd.

In 2025, ERock generated revenue of $183.1 million, up 42.5 percent from the previous year, according to the IPO filing. It recorded a net loss of $59 million last year.

As of March 31, ERock boasted a sales backlog of nearly $1.3 billion, up 779 percent on a year-over-year basis. The company attributes most of that increase to greater demand from data centers.

The company primarily serves the power needs of data centers, utilities, industrial facilities, and commercial buildings. Its biggest markets are Texas and California.

“Several U.S. markets, such as Texas and California, face especially acute reliability risks,” ERock says in the SEC filing. “Texas already shows rapid load-growth pressures tied to data centers and industrial expansion, while California faces grid congestion, long interconnection queues, and above-average vulnerability to extreme heat- and weather-driven outages.”

Since its founding in 2018, ERock has installed microgrid systems at more than 400 sites with a capacity of about 1,000 megawatts. Customers include ComEd, Foxconn, H-E-B, Microsoft and Walmart.

By the end of this year, the company plans to expand its production of microgrid systems to a capacity of about 1.2 gigawatts with the opening of its Hyperion facility in Houston.

John Carrington leads ERock as CEO. He joined ER Holdings last year as chairman and CEO. Carrington previously was CEO of Houston-based Stem, a public company that offers AI-enabled clean energy software and services. Earlier, he spent 16 years at General Electric.

Houston investment firm closes $105M energy venture fund

seeing green

Houston-based investment firm Veriten has announced the initial close of its second flagship energy venture fund with more than $105 million in capital commitments.

Fund II will build on Veriten’s initial fund and aim to support “scalable technology solutions for energy, power and industrial applications,” according to a company news release.

"Our differentiated network, research-driven process, and first principles approach to investing are having an impact across multiple verticals including traditional energy, electrification, and industrial technology. Fund II builds on that platform,” John Sommers, partner, investments at Veriten, added in the release. “In this environment, the differentiator isn't capital – it's all about connectivity, deep sector expertise, and an economically-driven approach. As new technologies and approaches develop at breakneck speed, the need for more reliable, affordable energy and power continues to grow dramatically. The current backdrop accentuates the need for Veriten's solution."

Veriten is supported by over 50 strategic partnerships in the energy, power, industrial and technology sectors, including major players like Halliburton and Phillips 66.

"Veriten continues to build a differentiated platform at the intersection of energy, technology and industry expertise," Jeff Miller, chairman and CEO of Halliburton, said in the release. "We were early believers in the team and their ability to identify practical solutions to real challenges across the energy value chain. As all industries increasingly adopt digital tools, automation and AI-enabled technologies to improve performance and execution, we are proud to partner with Veriten again to help accelerate high-impact solutions across the broader energy landscape."

Veriten closed its debut fund, NexTen LP, of $85 million in committed capital in October 2023. It was launched in January 2022 by Maynard Holt, co-founder and former CEO of the energy investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.

It has invested in Houston-based AI-powered electricity analytics provider Amperon and led a $12 million Seed 2 funding round for Houston-based Helix Technologies to scale manufacturing of its energy-efficient commercial HVAC add-on earlier this year. In the past year it has contributed to funding rounds for San Francisco-based Armada and Calgary-based Veerum.

Veriten also named Nick Morriss as its new managing director earlier this month. Morriss most recently served as vice president of business development at next-generation nuclear technology company Natura Resources and spent nearly 20 years at NOV Inc.

Houston energy expert asks: Who pays when AI outruns the power grid?

Guets Column

For most of the past 20 years, U.S. electricity policy relied on predictable trends in demand. Electricity use, in most regions, increased gradually, forecasts were stable, and utilities adjusted the system in small steps. Power plants, transmission lines, and substations were generally added to reflect shifts in load, rather than growth, and costs were recovered through modest adjustments to customer bills.

Growth in AI data centers has disrupted this model. A single facility can add as much electricity demand as a small town. That demand comes all at once, runs continuously, and has little tolerance for outages. If electricity service drops even briefly, computation stops, and services shut down. Ironically, data centers need reliable service, a point that their emergence is driving concern around for the rest of the grid.

What the numbers say

The International Energy Agency projects global electricity consumption from data centers to double by 2030, reaching roughly 945 TWh, nearly 3 percent of global electricity demand, with consumption growing about 15 percent per year this decade. McKinsey projects that U.S. data center demand alone could grow 20–25 percent per year, with global capacity demand more than tripling by 2030.

After years of roughly 0.5 percent annual demand growth, many forecasts now place total U.S. electricity demand growth closer to 2–3 percent per year through the mid-2030s, with much higher growth in specific regions. In Texas, some forecasters are saying electricity demand could double over the next five years, a staggering 10 percent per year growth rate. What sounds incremental on paper translates into a major challenge on the ground. Meeting this pace of growth is estimated to require $250–$300 billion per year in grid investment, about double what the system has been absorbing.

Where the system starts to strain

The strain appears first in the interconnection queue. It shows up as long waits, backlogs, and delays for connecting new loads and new generation.

Before new generators or large load customers can be connected, a study is required to assess their impact on the grid, whether it can physically handle the added load, and whether upgrades are required. With AI-driven data centers, utilities face far more connection requests than they can realistically support. In ERCOT, large-load interconnection requests exceed 200 gigawatts, most tied to data centers. That amount exceeds historical norms, and it is several times larger than what can be practically studied or built in the near term.

To be clear, public utility commissions are required to study these requests because they must manage system capabilities to ensure minimal disruption. This means engineers spend time evaluating projects that may never be built, while other more commercially viable projects may wait longer for approvals. This extends timelines and makes infrastructure planning less reliable.

Why policymakers are rethinking the rules

Utilities and their regulators must decide how much generation, transmission, and substation capacity to build years before it comes online. Those decisions are based on expected demand at the time projects are approved. When it comes to data centers, by the time infrastructure is completed, they may end up deploying newer, more efficient chips that use less power than originally assumed. This can result in grid infrastructure built for a higher load than what actually materializes, leaving excess capacity that still must be paid for through system-wide rates.

That’s the central dilemma. If utilities build too little capacity, the system operates with less reserve margin. During periods of grid stress, operators have fewer options, increasing the likelihood of curtailments or outages. However, if utilities build too much, customers may be asked to pay for infrastructure that is not fully used.

In response, policymakers are adjusting the rules. In some regions, regulators are moving toward bring-your-own-power approaches that require large data centers to supply or fund part of the capacity needed to serve them or reduce demand during system stress. At the federal level, permitting reforms tied to datacenter infrastructure increasingly treat electricity as a strategic economic input.

As Ken Medlock, senior director at the Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES), explains:

“Many of the planned data centers are now also adding behind-the-meter options to their development plans because they do not anticipate being able to manage their needs solely from the grid, and they certainly cannot do so with only intermittent power sources.”

Behind-the-meter (BTM) refers to power that a consumer controls on its side of the utility meter, such as on-site gas generation or a dedicated power plant. These resources allow data centers to keep operating during grid-related service. Most facilities remain connected to the grid, but the backup BTM generation serves as insurance for operating their core business.

This shifts responsibility. Utilities traditionally manage reliability across all customers by maintaining an operating reserve margin, or spare capacity. Increasingly, large-load customers manage part of their own electricity reliability needs, which changes how infrastructure is planned and how risk is distributed.

Bottom line

AI-driven load growth is arriving faster and in more concentrated places than the power system was built to accommodate. Utilities and regulators are being forced to make decisions sooner than planned about where to build, how fast to build, and which customers get priority when capacity is limited. The effects extend beyond data centers, showing up in system costs, reliability margins, competition for grid access, and pressure on communities and industries that depend on affordable and dependable power. The issue is not whether electricity can be generated, but how the costs and risks of rapid demand growth are distributed as the system tries to keep up. How regulators balance these decisions will determine who pays as AI demand outruns the power grid.

-----------

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME