GRN and XBCXBC and GRN hope to make profits by manufacturing systems for RNG producers who will capture rogue methane and process it to displace fossil gas. This will help to mitigate the rapidly growing climate crisis, evidence of which is now on display in Europe. The science of global warming has been known for decades but most of the world remains sceptical and the penalty for emitting GHGs is far too low to support a higher demand and higher prices for XBC and GRN systems. Globally, the average cost for emitting CO2 is about $CAD 4/MT. In Europe the average cost is about $CAD 126/MT. In Sweden it is about $170/MT. In Canada it is about $50. In the US it is ZERO.
The bio-methane that XBC and GRN systems capture is about 80 times more potent as a GHG than CO2 over 20 years so the real value of capturing methane is actually $10,000/MT (based on average European cost for CO2)
Ironically, while XBC and GRN have faced stiff problems, fossil fuel producers (and their investors) have done exceptionally particularly during the current energy market disruption caused primarily by the war in Ukraine. Over the past18 months CVE stock, for example, has increased over 50%. while XBC has lost about 90% of it’s value and GRN has lost about 75% of it’s value. As well, oil sands producers will now be given massive subsidies (taxpayer $$) to capture and store the 70 kg/BBL of CO2 they produce in the (SAGD) extraction process.
Unless there is a realistic cost for emitting GHGs or the RNG sector is subsidized like the oil sands is, it is not clear that XBC or GRN can ever generate a net profits. They are small companies and highly sensitive to supply chain disruptions, inflation, and energy market issues (resulting from the Ukraine war). Investors are not interested in all those uncertainties.
If there is ever real global recognition of the urgency of the climate crisis and the penalty for emitting GHGs reflects that urgency then XBC and GRN will likely do very well. Until then they will struggle.