Two Houston companies have partnered up to explore gold hydrogen technology. Photo via cemvita.com

Two Houston-area companies have announced a strategic partnership to test a unique hydrogen production technology.

The Woodlands-based ChampionX Corporation (NASDAQ: CHX) and Gold H2 Inc. entered into the partnership on November 9. GH2, a subsidiary of Houston-based Cemvita, provides tailored subsurface microbiology solutions by harnessing the power of microorganisms to enable in-situ hydrogen production from depleted oil and gas wells.

Created with carbon neutrality, the gold hydrogen costs less to create and is more sustainable than its alternatives. Cemvita, a sustainability-focused biotech company, has already seen success from its technology. After successfully completing a pilot test of gold hydrogen in the oil-rich Permian Basin of West Texas, Cemvita raised an undisclosed amount of funding through its Gold H2 spin-out.

ChampionX, a global equipment and services provider for the oil and gas industry, has a suite of services and chemical technologies for optimizing production for reservoirs.

"Could not have asked for a better partner than ChampionX, Victor Keasler and Deric Bryant to helps us bring the Gold H2 technology to life. They are the industry leader in oilfield chemistry and microbiology and we are beyond excited to have them as a collaborator," Cemvita Co-founder and CEO Moji Karimi writes in a LinkedIn post. "I talk about creating a natural resource company of the future and our work at Gold H2 is a perfect example. To learn from subsurface biology and effectively turn the reservoir into a natural bioreactor and proactively biomanufacture end products of interest, integrating upstream with downstream."

Cemvita has had a flurry of corporate partnership announcements this year. In September, the company announced a 20-year off-take agreement with United to provide up to 50 million gallons of sustainable aviation fuel a year across 20 years.

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.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

DOE proposes cutting $1.2 billion in funding for hydrogen hub

funding cuts

The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed cutting $1.2 billion in funding for the HyVelocity Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, a clean energy project backed by AES, Air Liquide, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Mitsubishi Power Americas and Ørsted.

The HyVelocity project, which would produce clean hydrogen, appears on a new list of proposed DOE funding cancellations. The list was obtained by Latitude Media.

As of November, HyVelocity had already received $22 million of the potential $1.2 billion in DOE funding.

Other than the six main corporate backers, supporters of HyVelocity include the Center for Houston’s Future, Houston Advanced Research Center, Port Houston, University of Texas at Austin, Shell, the Texas governor’s office, Texas congressional delegation, and the City of Fort Worth.

Kristine Cone, a spokeswoman for GTI Energy, the hub’s administrator, told EnergyCapital that it hadn’t gotten an update from DOE about the hub’s status.

The list also shows the Magnolia Sequestration Hub in Louisiana, being developed by Occidental Petroleum subsidiary 1PointFive, could lose nearly $19.8 million in federal funding and the subsidiary’s South Texas Direct Air Capture (DAC) Hub on the King Ranch in Kleberg County could lose $50 million. In September, 1Point5 announced the $50 million award for its South Texas hub would be the first installment of up to $500 million in federal funding for the project.

Other possible DOE funding losses for Houston-area companies on the list include:

  • A little over $100 million earmarked for Houston-based BP Carbon Solutions to develop carbon storage projects
  • $100 million earmarked for Dow to produce battery-grade solvents for lithium-ion batteries. Dow operates chemical plants in Deer Park and LaPorte
  • $39 million earmarked for Daikin Comfort Technologies North America to produce energy-efficient heat pumps. The HVAC company operates the Daikin Texas Technology Park in Waller
  • Nearly $6 million earmarked for Houston-based Baker Hughes Energy Transition to reduce methane emissions from flares
  • $3 million earmarked for Spring-based Chevron to explore development of a DAC hub in Northern California
  • Nearly $2.9 million earmarked for Houston-based geothermal energy startup Fervo Energy’s geothermal plant in Utah

Houston ranks No. 99 out of 100 on new report of greenest U.S. cities

Sustainability Slide

Houstonians may be feeling blue about a new ranking of the greenest cities in the U.S.

Among the country’s 100 largest cities based on population, Houston ranks 99th across 28 key indicators of “green” living in a new study from personal finance website WalletHub. The only city with a lower ranking is Glendale, Arizona. Last year, Houston landed at No. 98 on the WalletHub list.

“‘Green’ living means a choice to engage in cleaner, more sustainable habits in order to preserve the planet as much as possible,” WalletHub says.

Among the study’s ranking factors are the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per capita, the number of “smart energy” policies, and the presence of “green job” programs.

In the study, Houston received an overall score of 35.64 out of 100. WalletHub put its findings into four buckets, with Houston ranked 100th in the environment and transportation categories, 56th in the lifestyle and policy category, and 52nd in the energy sources category.

In the environment category, Houston has two big strikes against it. The metro area ranks among the 10 worst places for ozone pollution (No. 7) and year-round particle pollution (No. 8), according to the American Lung Association’s 2025 list of the most polluted cities.

In the WalletHub study, San Jose, California, earns the honor of being the country’s greenest city. It’s followed by Washington, D.C.; Oakland, California; Irvine, California; and San Francisco.

“There are plenty of things that individuals can do to adopt a green lifestyle, from recycling to sharing rides to installing solar panels on their homes,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said in the report. “However, living in one of the greenest cities can make it even easier to care for the environment, due to sustainable laws and policies, access to locally grown produce, and infrastructure that allows residents to use vehicles less often. The greenest cities also are better for your health due to superior air and water quality.”