The SAF Podcast

The SAF Podcast: Honeywell - Evolving, acquiring and forming alliances

• SAF Investor • Season 3 • Episode 18

Share episode

In this episode of The SAF Podcast we are joined by Richard Mathers, Senior Director of Business Development at Honeywell Sustainable Technology Solutions, for an in-depth exploration of Honeywell’s expanding role in sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) technology. 

If you follow any form of SAF news, you will have heard of Honeywell given their announcements of the ongoing $1.8bn all cash acquisition of Johnson Matthey's Catalyst Technology solutions business and the formation of the SAF Alliance alongside Johnson Matthey, Samsung Electronics E&A, GIDARA Energy. These collaborations aim to streamline project delivery, reduce capital expenditure by up to 10%, and accelerate project timelines by 15%. 

First, Richard walks us through Honeywell’s approach to technology licensing, project financing, and feedstock flexibility across multiple SAF pathways—including HEFA, ethanol-to-jet, methanol-to-jet (eFining), and FT-Unicracking.

Richard explains the critical role technology licensors play beyond just providing technology – from performance guarantees and warranties to supporting project finance and reducing perceived risks throughout the project lifecycle.

Richard provides valuable insights into technology licensing benefits, project financing considerations, and how Honeywell's evolutionary approach to proven technologies helps de-risk SAF production investments.

If you enjoyed this discussion check out our previous episode with SKyNRG and ICF discussing their recent Global Market Outlook report here: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2202964/episodes/17435560

Speaker 1:

Hello and welcome to another episode of the SAF podcast. This week I'm delighted to be joined by Richard Mathers, senior Business Development for Honeywell Sustainable Technology Solutions. Today we're going to be talking about all things Honeywell, because they've had a busy few months with lots of very interesting announcements and looking at their refining technologies, the role of technology licences and the overall business strategy for Honeywell, and hopefully giving everyone a bit more clarity about what's gone on over the last few months, because it has been a busy one. But before that, richard, how are you? Thanks so much for joining us.

Speaker 2:

I'm not at all. Oscar, thanks very much for the opportunity to join you on the SAF podcast. Thank you.

Speaker 1:

Absolute pleasure. So before we get into all the details, do you just want to give everyone an understanding of your background, how you ended up in your current role? And we'll start with that before we get into Honeywell.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, sure, no problem. Well, I've been with Honeywell for just over 15 years. I was previously with a specialty chemical company and had held previous roles in research, product development, product management and marketing. I started in Honeywell UOP with a focus on the technology, licensing, sales and business development into the refining and petrochemical sector. Then, after a few years, I moved on to take a role that covering all of Honeywell UOP's process technology offerings into the gas processing and hydrogen space. And then, immediately prior to my current role, I was responsible for all of the commercial activities of UOP across the former Soviet Union.

Speaker 2:

So if we then step on to my current role in 2021, honeywell set up the sustainable technology solutions business business and I guess really the aim of that was developing and commercializing highly differentiated technologies that really enable and accelerate a material reduction in that energy carbon intensity. This utilized a lot of the UOP technologies with a specific focus on renewable fuels, plastic circularity, carbon capture and low carbon intensity hydrogen solutions. So I'm responsible for developing STS's sales and businesses globally and aligning that as a new business within the regional structures that are already operated by Honeywell. And then you know, if we look at the renewable fuels, for example, it means that we've got to focus on the offering rather than the industrial vertical. You know, renewable fuels is no longer just that sole domain of the heritage refining vertical but, you know, encompasses much broader spectrum energy providers, energy companies and developers, energy providers, energy companies and developers.

Speaker 1:

So STS, is that a separate entity from UOP? Is that still underneath the Honeywell UOP umbrella?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so we are all within the ESS division of Honeywell and STS, while we are a separate business. Under that, we do have that common execution ability through UOP. As I said, you know, many of those technologies are heritage UOP. And then we start to talk about evolving technologies rather than evolutionary technologies, I should say, rather than revolutionary technologies.

Speaker 1:

Does every single new business sector of Honeywell have to be an acronym?

Speaker 2:

because you've got ESS, STS, UOP. Yes, I think that does cause some confusion sometimes.

Speaker 1:

definitely on that, I think we need our own internal acronym builder, I think you just need to have a glossary at the back of whenever you send anything defining all the different acronyms. That's it, because we haven't even got into any of the technologies yet.

Speaker 2:

Yeah we haven't even mentioned HEFA or SAF or things like that yes.

Speaker 1:

So on your technologies, do you just want to briefly give an overview of that sort of what technologies you are, you are active in, what you're licensing, which ones you're developing, to give everyone an overview of everything? I'm sure people will be aware of some of the offerings, but maybe not all of them.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, sure, so we'd focus on the renewable fuels component on that. So if we focus on that, you actually go back to 2008, so almost 20 years ago, whenever the ecofining technology so ecofining was the technology that was co-developed between UOP and the Italian refiner E&I. That was whenever it was launched, and at the time the focus was on biofuels rather than specific to SAF on that, and that was because at the time, the majority of the world's focus was originally more on renewable diesel. There, the ecofining technology covers both the coprocessing of hefa so under acronyms you know, the hydro-processed acids, fatty esters, those feedstocks to produce the renewable fuels as well as the ability to utilise a 100% hefa feedstock through to renewable fuels. So obviously, whenever we talk about coprocessing, it's exactly that. It's as it sounds. You're replacing a portion of the fossil fuel feedstock with the heifer material, so that could be coproased in an FCC, a hydrotreater or a hydrocracker to produce a portion of renewable fuel along with that fossil equivalent. So that ecofinding technology was launched in 2008. In 2013, world Energy utilized the ecofinding technology to start the world's first SAF facility in the US. Then, in 2014, e&i started revamping their Venice refinery to become a bio refinery utilizing that same technology. Really, since then there's more than 50 ecofining units have been licensed and we're actually seeing a significant increase in the number ofGC in Japan and Zhao in China, which is actually the world's first MaxSaf unit. And then we're obviously looking forward to more, starting up this year, for example, the Bangchuk refinery in Thailand this year, for example, the Bangchuk refinery in Thailand. So HEFA was where it started, but several years ago we recognized that the feedstock will become that limiting factor. So, starting to, we launched our ethanol to jet technology and then, in mid 23, we launched our e-fining, which is our methanol to jet offerings.

Speaker 2:

So I mentioned earlier I use the words evolutionary and not revolutionary, and what I mean by that is, you know, whenever we look at these process technologies, the building blocks for the processes are commercially proven. So what we did was actually optimize the processes to maximize, for example, the production of SAF. So if I use methanol to jet just as an example of that, so the methanol to jet technology, it utilizes the Honeywell UOP methanol to olefins technology. The olefins then are oligomerized and then finally hydrogenated to produce SAF. So, although there's no single methanol to jet unit currently operating, all of the building blocks are actually commercially proven at world scale. So, for example, there are seven operating UOP methanol to olefin plants which have been operating since 2013. Significant size, including the world's largest single train, almost 850,000 tons per annum. There's over 400 ligamentization units that have been licensed and designed, 27 hydrogenation units commercialized.

Speaker 2:

So that's what I mean about the building blocks being commercially proven and what we're doing is putting those together, being commercially proven, and what we're doing is putting those together, optimising them for the production of SAF. And then, most recently, mid last year mid 24, we launched our FT Unicracking Again Honeywell UOP. We've been providing hydrocracking technology catalysts and services for decades, so what we've done is optimize the offering through a combination of commercially proven, highly selective hydrocracking hydroisomeration catalysts. So focusing on driving that three to 5% more SAF and driving down the cost versus other commonly used hydrocracking methods. So that's just a brief summary of our SAF route offerings in terms of co-processing, eco-fining for the heifer route, ethanol to jet, which is self-explanatory, e-fining, which is our methanol to jet, and then, most recently, the ft uni cracking offering and with all of those technologies you mentioned, you've sold over 50 of the for the heifer pathway globally.

Speaker 1:

Really, if you and you talked about over the last few years, you've seen a big growth in that. Is that the one where you're seeing the most interest, or are there sort of different regions that are sort of seeing you're seeing different activity in different pathways? Or are there any trends that you can pick out in terms of where and what you're licensing?

Speaker 2:

yeah, I wouldn't say we're seeing a pathway having considerably greater interest than another. Uh, at the current time, you, if you go back a number of years, the HEFA was what was available and predominant at the time. But now with the further pathways, we maybe do see a difference depending on region. On that one, so you might look at regional policies, grants, mandates, factors like that can play a part, but it's also the feedstock and the feedstock availability. You look at the vast majority of the world's ethanol is produced in North America and Latin America, so we see a significant interest in ethanol to jet from there. You look at Europe and China. They're building a significant amount of bio and e-methanol production, so we see the interest in the methanol to jet there.

Speaker 2:

We're seeing regions like India start to move into the heifer coprocessing as well as interest in the ethanol to jet. And then when you look across FT, we just continue to see the interest there where there's an abundance of municipal solid waste or biomass. So I think those are the changes. But then the other change that I touched on earlier was if you step back in history, the focus was on that, renewable fuels, more specifically the renewable diesel. We moved through that period when the focus was the ability to produce both with the swing being able to swing your production depending on the market but really in the recent years it's all about that maximising the SAF yield. So I would say it's a mix, the change rather than the major focus being HEFA, which it was a few years ago, we're now just seeing interest spread across those multiple routes to SAF.

Speaker 1:

And when you're sort of approached by someone looking to produce, you know whatever pathway and they're looking to license your technology, what's the sort of process key considerations that you take before you end up signing a licensing agreement with you? What does that process look like from a Honeywell perspective?

Speaker 2:

Well, I guess from a Honeywell perspective, obviously you know we like to speak about trying to work in partnership rather than just a license or licensee relationship or vendor supplier relationship, and in those cases it's about moving forward step by step, understanding their requirements and limitations.

Speaker 2:

You know the interest in the technologies comes from all different types of verticals, you know, whether it might be a heritage refining, it might be an energy company, it might be a product developer or project developer on that, most of them are obviously involved at the very early stages of the projects. Now you're talking about feedstock will pretty much dictate what route you're going down, albeit there may be access to those different routes, whether that be, for example, going from CO2 and hydrogen. You might either route through the FT or you might route through sorry, ft, fisher Tropes I'm just speaking about our joy of acronyms oil and oil to jet and again those type of things. There are multiple considerations that might come into that, whether around the availability of, for example, green hydrogen, the business case, etc. And the other thing we recognise we're a technology provider and it's as much about us putting forward ourselves that the potential end user is choosing us as a partner really to work with really to work with.

Speaker 1:

so it's not like sort of dragon's den or shark tank where people are coming to you trying to pitch their post, pitch their idea of their refinery to you and you're going to decide whether to partner up or not it's a bit more complicated complicated, certainly more complicated than that.

Speaker 2:

Now I often feel it's it's the other way around. On that, I think it's ourselves putting you know, Honeywell UOP, putting forward our technology and our offerings to understand, you know, to show where that alignment can happen on that, Because we're working with a lot of you know, a lot of companies maybe don't have a background in process technology or you know. Again, coming back to that first of a kind concept versus the commercially proven, et cetera, there, because every company wants their project, as do we, want it to be bookable, finance, you know, able to be bankable, financeable, et cetera, and move forward on that side.

Speaker 1:

So everybody wants to to have a successful project on the bankability of projects, um, that aspect, how does sort of technology licensing? One of the big sort of advantages of it is the, you know the de-risk technology. And then there are arguments around the um, the management of opex. So the operational expenditure and the ongoing costs of refining. Is that one of the big benefits and something that you can pitch to prospective projects about the ability to help find investment if they know they're licensing through a honeywell technology?

Speaker 2:

yeah, so I you know, I guess whenever we say licensed technology it's actually about differentiated technology, so not just the licensing process itself. On that, so ultimately the people that know the technology best are the companies that actually license that technology. So, going back, many of the Honeywell technologies, as I mentioned before, are evolutions of those commercially proven technologies. So there's a strong knowledge already of the CapEx and of the OpEx expectations, as well as the yields and the performance. Obviously it's not just about supporting the project to get from the feasibility through the concept etc to startup. It's about supporting the project for the entire lifecycle of that project. You've got the design and construction piece, then you move through the startup. You need to the design and construction piece, then you move through the startup. You need to be able to operate and maintain. You need the support in that area, you need the support in terms of the optimization and then you potentially move into the upgrade and the revamp aspects of that. But it's also about that performance assurance. So, for example, for us at Honeywell UOP, we guarantee the performance of all of our technologies. We don't differentiate between different technologies. We would stand behind them all. So, for example, we would guarantee the performance of the unit, whether that be in terms of capacities, yields, quality, catalyst life, absorbent life, et cetera, the warranties on any engineering services, mechanical warranties on the equipment offerings.

Speaker 2:

Now you also mentioned specifically on OPEX. Now if you start to look at OPEX, the main OPEX components would be feedstocks and utilities. Now the technology licensor should be able to provide the utility requirements up front as part of that basic engineering design package. This means that that can be factored into the financial model as part of that lending process. But then I also mentioned your feedstock and if we take the example of heifer, you know there are many, many different types of oils, fats, greases, algaes, et cetera that can be used as feedstock. You know, typically we hear from lenders that the three main criteria are feedstock, feedstock-tick. So obviously having a large database of the feedstocks that have already been processed in commercial operations, as well as the ability to test the new feedstocks through our pilot plants and understand the impacts on the yields and the utilities at a commercial scale, that also allows the specific feedstock costs to be factored into the financials in terms of those models et cetera, for the bankability.

Speaker 1:

Is it less about, then, reducing costs opex, more about the transparency earlier in the process around what the opex actually is.

Speaker 2:

That's the benefit yeah, I would say it's predominantly. You know lenders want a solid base really on that. So you know that's why the financial model is built to understand the areas there. You know a lot of the projects being built at the moment are not necessarily in the heritage energy sector, so they're not on balance sheet projects. They are, for example, non-recourse project financing. So companies and lenders, banks et cetera, are looking for that certainty of cost, certainty of startup, certainty of timeline and certainty of ongoing and optimized operations. So, yes, you need to build all of those into the financial model at the start, but then, as you say, yes, you do need to continue that progress throughout the 15, 20, 25 year life cycle of that unit. So you're continually having to innovate, continually having to optimize, continually having to improve the process, improve the catalytic capabilities, etc.

Speaker 1:

And in terms of you know CapEx, so the initial capital expenditure. One of the benefits is you can repurpose existing infrastructure more easily with one of your technologies, rather than having a whole new technology developed and trying to implement it into that existing technology. Because, as you said, it's an you've got an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach, so you can tweak existing infrastructure, regardless of sort of where it is in the world, and adapt it to these new sort of biofuels staff, whatever you're sort of producing yeah, so you're really talking about that repurposing of the existing refinery infrastructure on that.

Speaker 2:

So yeah, as you mentioned, I guess we'll take a couple of examples on that. If we look at the heifer route, in principle it's exactly the same technology that's used to produce SAF from heifer feedstock as the technology that's being used to produce jet fuel from the fossil feedstock, so it's a hydro processing technology, hydrocracking for SAF. Now we've already seen many refiners repurpose or revamp those assets for the SAF production, either hydro treaters or hydrocrackers. I mentioned earlier E&I in Italy, great example of that. But then you also look to other routes of SAF and, for example, I spoke about our methanol to jet technology being built on our existing methanol to olefins technology as the key building block for ourselves. On that.

Speaker 2:

You look at a company like Zhutai in China. Now they're going to be using our methanol to jet technology to produce 100,000 tons of ESAF, but they plan to integrate the surplus capacity from their existing UOP MTO facility to produce SAF. Now they have a 600,000 KMT or 600 KMTA unit that's been operating since 2019. They also operate a 1 million ton per annum methanol unit, so they've got the ability to repurpose partial of that. But then it's not just those specific units. You look at the. It's not just the inside battery limits of the technology. You look at an existing refinery infrastructure. It might have utilities already available in the form of hydrogen, electricity, steam, etc. It may have tanks, storage pipelines, pipelines, routes for import and export transport routes. Uh, you know there's a significant potential to repurpose existing refinery infrastructure, as well as the opportunity for for new standalone units and projects and another one.

Speaker 1:

I'm basically doing a version of myth busting right now. I'm going through all the different benefits and seeing if they're true or not. Another one of the benefits is the reduction of the green premium that you can potentially have through licensing technology. Is that necessarily the case? Is that a slight misnomer? There's a few more variables at play than you can necessarily just boil it down to a simple yes no I I think you have been on the head with with that one it's.

Speaker 2:

it's not a a simple yes, no, but you're. I guess we're talking about that extra cost associated with, for example, the production of saf, the production of SAF, versus the production of jet fuel from fossil feedstock. Now, the green premium, I would say heavily driven by policies, incentives, mandates, feedstock price, market demand, product availability. Yes, mature technology licensing has the ability to help reduce the green premium. For example, we can say that HEFA is the most mature technology for SAF production and certainly the cost of the SAF produced by the HEFA route is lower than other routes. But I wouldn't say that we see that reducing the green premium in the short term At this point it actually probably just means that operators are able to take financial advantage of the green premium through the advantage cost of production.

Speaker 2:

We're certainly not in a commodity market. Saf is very much still a developing market globally. But that focus on reducing the green premium is actually key on that and, to be honest, it's typical of the type of language that we're using within Honeywell, within Honeywell STS, using internally how can we help reduce the green premium? You know that's part of our ethos in terms of the STS business. We want to enable and accelerate a material reduction in the global energy carbon intensity. That'll only happen if we can actually help reduce that green premium.

Speaker 1:

And when you say help reduce the green premium, is that through commercially proving different technologies. So there's more technologies available to produce SAF, so there's more sort of commercial production and different feedstocks. There's not so much feedstock pressure on heifer, for example, or is it? You know licensing and helping build as many of these projects as possible, regardless of of you know feedstock and pathway they're using what? What does that look like?

Speaker 2:

I think it's all of the above and more on that, and it's really looking at where we can support, where we can help, where and and how we can do that as well. Obviously, yes, you've got the, the, the fundamental technology in and of itself, and the optimization support, the improvement of the technology, increasing yields, decreasing OPEX, improving CAPEX, those types of areas. But there are a lot of soft benefits that licensors can provide, benefits that licensors can provide. If we look at Honeywell, obviously Honeywell SDS it's backed by a multi-billion parent company. So you start to talk about warranties, guarantees, commitments and legal obligations. Those are all recognized by those top tier lenders, the financiers, the bankers, et cetera.

Speaker 2:

We can also provide input to those, to the lenders, independent engineers, to the consultants and to the advisors, helping them see that, as you mentioned, that first of a kind may not truly be first of a kind. It may be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, if we look at that aspect of the technologies. And and then the reduction in the use of the obsolescence which you touched on as well. On that you know we're a pure play technology licensor, and what I mean by that is we do not produce renewable fuels or SAF ourselves. On that, the expectation of a licensor is that we need to be continually innovating to improve the yields, decrease the costs, et cetera. On that, we need to understand that the successful project doesn't just happen at startup. We need it optimizing product output through innovations in process catalyst or in the operations over the entire life of that unit going through how involved are you with you know discussions with lenders when you're involved in a project.

Speaker 1:

Is that something you leave to? You know the your partners that are sort of actively developing the project? Do they sort of come to you ask for advice or that are sort of actively developing the project? Do they sort of come to you ask for advice or are you sort of actively involved in those financing discussions?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I would say we're very actively involved in those financing discussions because everyone involved in a project wants the project to progress, wants the project to go ahead. So, as I mentioned before, we would have discussions with those lenders, engineers, the consultants etc. Make them comfortable with it as well. Obviously, we provide a lot of the input that would go into the building of that financial model there as well. The interesting thing is Honeywell UOP was a very, and still is, a world-recognized name within the refining and petrochemical sector.

Speaker 2:

But, as I mentioned earlier on, the renewable fuels is not the sole domain of the refiner and petrochem area. You're really stepping out into new areas and, again, because a lot of the heritage was maybe more on balance sheet, we're finding our exposure to those banks, to those lenders. We need to make them comfortable with who we are and what we do. So much so that actually within the Honeywell UOP and STS structure we actually have a project finance director and their sole role is to provide support and guidance to those projects as they work through that financing phase. So it's really a case of working along with the broader team with the intent of you know, how do we get that next step, how do we achieve, maybe, the funding that's being targeted? How do we achieve the lending that's being targeted? Can we help them to get there and move that through successfully?

Speaker 1:

As you mentioned, these projects are often required different forms of financing than previously. And you've also got on the other side new, you know, investors, whether that's banks, private equity looking to get involved in this space. How easy is it sort of, you know, make them, help them understand this very technical chemical language and this engineering process to to make them feel at ease with the risks. It's such an important part of it but often a very complex thing to explain succinctly so that you know a layman can understand, or someone that's not so technologically understanding.

Speaker 2:

Sure, and I think it starts from that top level, ensuring that first of all, you know, are the banks, the lenders do they know who Honeywell are, etc. All of those other components. But what we're starting to see is actually a lot of engineers, a lot of chemical engineers, moving and actually taking a role as part in that lending process, so being employed by banks, by lenders, etc. Specifically to look through that. But that's also why they use those independent engineers and the consultants. So I think we're seeing that shift. Not everybody needs to go down into the temperatures, pressures et cetera on that side, but it needs to be enough to make sure that they are comfortable about reducing the perceived risk of the technology. There You're talking about those individual building blocks. So just because the entire process in one doesn't sit, that doesn't mean that you're sitting down at a very low TRL level for the overall technology. But no, we're certainly seeing a lot of engineers or heritage engineers now being employed by banks, lenders, financiers and picking up some of these discussions.

Speaker 1:

That must make life a lot easier, particularly if you're developing projects, delays in construction, sort of technology related issues, when you come to sort of producing on commercial scale, explaining these delays why your two investors are so important, because they're obviously very keen to see a return in line with their you know, the timelines they have, which might not necessarily totally align with the project project timeline. So that's a that's a delicate sort of relationship to balance it.

Speaker 2:

It is a delicate relationship, but even more so in that sort of non-recourse project financing piece because, as you say time, you know it's a certainty of time as well as the certainty of the cost etc there and it's also looking at how else can we, as a technology licensor, how can we support, how can we bring more certainty or more support, how can we help reduce that risk overall moving forward. But I agree with everything you're saying on that side, most definitely.

Speaker 1:

So I'm going to move on to your recent news, and I started the podcast by talking about you. Guys have had a busy few months with lots of um announcements and big deals, so I want to start with your recent deal with Johnson Matthey, the the 1.8 billion cash deal. I want to know how many suitcases that was, that cash was put in and how many people are to carry it over to the Johnson Matthey offices. Um, um. So do you just want to go through? You know what that is, why that's important and what that then allows you to do and how that strategically helps not just Honeywell and Johnson Matthey but also the overall SAF industry yeah, sure, now I'll probably answer that in two separate parts.

Speaker 2:

So if we go from a historical timeline perspective on that, so if you look at November last year, actually Honeywell and Johnson Matthey we signed an MOU, so a Memorandum of Understanding, to offer an end-to end solution for businesses developing the alternate fuels, with a primary focus on the Fisher Tropes route and the methanol to jet routes to SAF. So what that was doing was that was bringing together Johnson Matthey's Syngas solution and Honeywell UOPs our expertise in that fuel upgrading technologies. So you're looking at from an FT perspective, it combines the Johnson Matthey BP co-developed FT CANS technology with our FT Unicracking technology, the methanol route. That brings together our e-finance or methanol to jet technology along with Johnson Matthey's methanol technologies, which also includes their emerald technology, which is their e-methanol. On that we all want the projects to proceed and we want them to be bankable. So we need to support the projects to be commercially viable and it's about the perceived risk. So reducing the complexity, maximizing the coordination across the multiple vendors reduces that perceived risk. So recognizing that synergies exist whenever those, let's say, two global leaders in sustainable technologies, whenever we come together, it's hugely beneficial.

Speaker 2:

The second part of my answer, which is more aligned with the broader consideration of your question is obviously. In May this year there was the announcement that Honeywell intends to acquire the Johnson Matthey Catalyst Technologies business. Now this is expected to close in the first half of 2026, subject to the customary closing conditions, regulatory approvals, etc. Now, until then, we do continue to operate as two separate companies. But the Johnson Matthey Catalyst Technologies, if we take that step back, it complements our existing UOP's business in terms of selling the Catalyst, the process technologies and expands on our existing installed base. It includes the Johnson Matthey Technologies I mentioned earlier, but in addition, with an expanded portfolio, we'd basically be able to offer customers a fully comprehensive solution for production of lower emission critical fuels, including sustainable methanol, sustainable aviation fuel, blue hydrogen and blue ammonia. There's just hand in hand synergies right across the board on that.

Speaker 1:

So no briefcases have exchanged hands yet. That's to be finalised, so we're going to have to watch this space to see how many briefcases it is.

Speaker 2:

That's it. Watch this space and hopefully all those out by first half of next year.

Speaker 1:

So and the partnership with Johnson, matthey and Honeywell. You guys are actively working on projects where these technologies are working together in the SAF space already, because you know lots of people initially think, oh, you partner with a technology licensor and that's the technology. The whole refining technology is in one place, which often isn't the case. You'll license an aspect of the refining process alongside other vendors, as you say. So, um, you know, other technology providers will provide the technologies for other aspects of the refining scenario. So bringing that under one roof streamlines the whole process. And does it speak? Would it speed up situation anything? Or are those relationships already strong enough that you just sort of plug and play almost with I?

Speaker 2:

did, I think it. You know you need to look at all of the variables that point that help the project move forward and what can be uh, you know, beneficial on that. Certainly bringing the individual building blocks, building those components, is beneficial, but then you actually also have to look at regional policies, impacts, et cetera. That could be that rate determining steps on that. But certainly, as I mentioned, the fewer touch points you can bring, then that reduces that perceived risk. And I guess we're sort of we're almost stepping into. You know we weren't finished there at that, because there was also then a very recent another announcement on what we're calling the SAF alliance, on what we're calling the SAF alliance and that really brings together Samsung, honeywell, johnson, matthey and Jidara on that. So really looking to introduce a new joint technology offering that leverages the Fisher Tropes production process, unlocking that feedstock to help those growing demands on SAF. So now the aim is to help drive those project timelines, provide customers with a single point of accountability for the project execution and the product guarantees. You look at the resources of all four companies you've got the integrated and modular solution is expected to reduce the time between the feasibility study and the facility startup by I think it's 15% we've calculated on that potentially reducing the capital expenditure by up to 10%. You look at what we're bringing to the marketplace together is it's designed for customers wanting a full service delivery. So, for example, gidara Energies, their gasification and syngas production for the feedstock transformation. Then you look at Johnson Matthey bringing their catalyst and their FT technology to move from the syngas to fuel, then our Honeywell FT unit cracking process technology and the digital automation solutions and then overall you've got Samsung's expertise in the engineering, procurement, construction and project execution. So you're starting to look at the benefits. In terms of operational benefits, you have the potential for one entity, the EPC, to oversee the entire project, the entire project lifecycle, from design to commissioning, streamlining communications, et cetera. Performance assurance, a single point of accountability on that and reducing that complexity as well.

Speaker 2:

We mentioned lenders want security of costs and time. The project needs to start up on time on cost ramp up quickly to full production and then continue on that maximized yield. So you start to look at well, what are those bankable financial benefits? Well, first of all, financial credibility. The companies we're talking about here are large, multinational, global companies backed by financially stable, reputable companies. That increases investor confidence. Then you start to look at the cost efficiency. Integrated modular approaches can reduce that capital expenditure and the operational costs. And then faster ROI, shorter project timelines, quicker revenue generation, improved financial performance. So it's really, as you say, bringing under an umbrella, but technology providers looking broader than just the technology, what solutions need to be brought to the market? How can we help that market evolve and develop, whether it's be something that we're able to do ourselves, or in partnership or collaboration with others?

Speaker 1:

Do you all get free the latest free Samsung phones as part of that deal as well?

Speaker 2:

Not, quite not quite.

Speaker 1:

I think you need to work on that bit. I appreciate it. The final thing I want to sort of we talked about all sorts of benefits of licensing and streamlining the touch points in the refining processes. What are some of the sort of? The more sort of like soft power, as it were, the soft skill benefits that aren't necessarily technology or finance related benefits that come from partnering with a technology licensor and, you know, is it as simple as sometimes saving some late nights panicking over or worrying about, you know, scaling up your own technology and you know other little sort of soft aspects to it.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think there's the recognition of what companies bring to the table on that.

Speaker 2:

So, while it might be technology licensor, well we play a part in almost every stage of the project.

Speaker 2:

So it's not just the technology licensing in and of itself on that and we would provide technology in multiple forms.

Speaker 2:

So, for example, we would provide technology in the form of engineering services, of equipment, of catalysts, of absorbance services, training, training, ongoing support, uh digital solutions, uh services to enhance reliability, etc. Obviously that's one of the benefits we have with the broader honeywell as well, that access to real-time simulation and monitoring as well as the advanced control systems. But really, as a technology provider can work with you from that initial feasibility or concept phase through the basic engineering design, feed into the detailed construction and then not just the commissioning of startup but the ongoing operations providing those guarantees supporting the financial model for the project. The other is, because we're a technology provider, we also have contacts with feedstocks providers, we have contacts with off-takers, with vendors, et cetera. And there are so many soft benefits to actually working with a recognized technology licensor that maybe a lot of companies don't realise or don't realise that they should be asking for because there's a lot more support being provided versus just the basic engineering design of a specific technology out there.

Speaker 1:

I will also point out that other technology lic are available, if um at this point. But um, richard, that was very interesting. Thanks so much for your time and wish all the best with you know, closing the Johnson Matthey deal, hopefully getting that all across the line and seeing the the benefits of that flood across Honeywell, johnson Matthey and the wider industry. But thanks so much for sharing your perspective with us.

Speaker 2:

No, not at all. Thank you very much for giving me the time to have this chat and catch up actually, and, as you say, it's a very interesting time. Very exciting time not just to be within Honeywell and everything that you mentioned is going on, but just within the SAF industry in and of itself. We are truly getting into very interesting times on that going forward. But no, thank you very much for your time. Thanks, oscar, absolutely.