October 1, 2025 • 18 mins
According to the IEA’s 2025 Global Methane Tracker, methane is responsible for around 30% of the current rise in global temperature. Mitigating methane, which has more than 80x the warming potential of CO2 over a 20-year period, is critical to addressing climate change. In this episode of ESG Currents, Bloomberg Intelligence’s director of ESG research Eric Kane speaks with Olya Irzak, founder and CEO of Frost Methane, about the company’s efforts to destroy, valorize and measure emissions from manure ponds and other sources. They also talk about the volatility of voluntary carbon markets, raising capital, the current climate policy landscape and more.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
ESG is constantly evolving. Over the years, it has shifted
from socially responsible investing to impact to sustainable finance. While
the terminology continues to change, what hasn't changed are the
underlying science, market pressures, and tangible physical and financial impacts
of the climate crisis, increasing regulatory scrutiny, and rising consumer expectations.
(00:34):
We aim to filter out the noise by speaking with
industry experts to identify what is really driving value. Welcome
to ESG Currents. I'm Eric Kaine, director of ESG Research
for Bloomberg Intelligence, and today we're talking about methane. According
to the IEA's twenty twenty five Global Methane Tracker, methane
(00:55):
is responsible for around thirty percent of the current rise
in global time temperatures. The gas has more than eighty
times the warming potential of CO two over a twenty
twenty year period, and the tracker estimates global methane emissions
to be about six hundred and ten million tons annually,
with human activity responsible for almost two thirds. The energy
(01:19):
sector accounts for about one hundred and forty five million tons,
while agriculture accounts for more than one hundred and sixty
million tons. Which brings us to today's guests, Olya Irzak,
who is the founder and CEO of Frost Methane, a
company that is working to address methane emissions from livestock
and other sources. Olia, welcome to the program, and thank
(01:41):
you so much for taking the time to join us
here in New York.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Wonderful. So let's dive right in and maybe we can
have you start with a description of frost methane and
the problem that you're ultimately trying to solve.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
For So, frost methane is about keeping waste methane out
of the atmosphere and helping valorize that waste pollution stream
and adding a revenue stream to hardworking farmers and landowners
that partner with us. We do this by having developed
a technology that captures destroys and measures very specifically these
(02:15):
methane sources.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Wonderful. So, I think you know one thing right off
the bat that may have surprise listeners is that you
aren't looking at oil and gas facilities, which I think
many of us often think about when we think about methane.
Can you explain why that is and what the size
of the addressable methane is for methane from the sources
that you're ultimately looking at.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Yes, so oil and gas is about twenty eight percent
of methane emissions in the US and something like twenty
two worldwide. But because it is so tightly associated for
everybody as kind of the methane problem, lots of investments
and lots of companies have developed a wide variety of
solutions for this. Right, So we're talking like hundreds of companies,
(02:59):
probably at least several billion dollars in funding. But there
are the other sources which are an overlooked opportunity, and
these are the sources that we're going after. So we're
looking at the sources that our technology is will good
fit for something like thirty one to forty percent of
the methane that you see today, and the market size
(03:19):
depends on local policies worldwide, but we put it at
least forty four billion dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Very interesting, And I think another immediate question is, you
know the idea of flaring the methane instead of capturing
the methane. So I assume this has to do with
available infrastructure to potentially store or transport the captured gas.
But curious to hear more of my assumption is correct.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean it all has to do with
the economics of getting the gas to somewhere useful, and
as you mentioned, infrastructure is incredibly important. These are typically
far from the pipelines, but also the quality of the gas.
So one of the challenges for a lot of the
sources that we deal with is this isn't like oil
(04:05):
and gas kind of flares right where we're talking ninety
eight percent methane. The gas we tackle it could be
thirty percent methane one day in the gas stream, seventy
five percent the next day, very low in the winter,
very high in the summer, Lots of htos and other
nasties in the gas, and so the cost of being
(04:26):
able to separate that and go, you know, truck it
to the nearest pipeline may work for very large farms
and for the like four hundred largest farms in the US,
people do do this, but then all of the other ones,
like the large and medium ones can't actually participate in
these markets. So that pushes towards consolidation. Right, So we
(04:48):
believe that there should be a solution for medium and
large farms to be able to participate in these markets
as well. And so the first step is, let's destroy
the methane, get them a revenue source, and measure very
specifically the trace other gases that make these very difficult
to work with. And if we find sources that are small,
(05:09):
less hds or closure to the pipeline, we may be
able to do something productive with that. But step one
is destroy, valorize, and measure. Step two is calculate, based
on the specific qualities of the source, whether we can
do something else with it as well.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Very interesting, so you use the term destroy the methane,
so you know my understanding, of course, is that by
flaring the methane, you're ultimately destroying it, converting it into
CO two and thereby obviously reducing the warming potential and
also thereby earning carbon credits accordingly, which you then sell.
(05:49):
Can you describe how the credits are ultimately accredited and
how you interact with both the regulatory and voluntary carbon markets.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Absolutely the credits. Methin gets turned one my loocal of method,
gets turned into one molecule of CO two, and when
methane decomposes in the atmosphere, it eventually turns into co two. Anyways,
it just traps all of these heat and actually contributes
to smog in between when it gets emitted and when
it gets destroyed. We speed up that process and that's
(06:23):
what the market s pay us for. So there's three
kinds of markets that we can participate in compliance, So
California Cap and Trade, Reggie Washington, Cabin Trade, they all
accept this type of methodology, like this type of project
because it is so so highly measurable and high quality.
There's what's called in setting markets. So this is very
(06:45):
popular within the food industry where these are offsets, but
within the supply chain, and you can see big announcements
by Nestle and by Mars having allocated quite a bit
of money for decarbonization of their supply chain. And then
there is purely volunteering markets, right, and all of those
three are reasonably different, but in all of them there
(07:08):
is a third party verifier that comes out physically to
our site and checks our data. And these are really
high scrutiny for our project types. They even check how
frequently we calibrate our sensors, because of course all chemical
sensors drift. So really well thought out methodology compared to
some of what we're seeing, and so we install the project.
(07:31):
Within a year, we get a third party verifier to
come out, and only then can we issue the credits
from the beginning of the project until that verifier comes out,
and then the same thing the year after that. So
we never issue the credits ahead of the third party verifier.
The registries that we use for voluntary and compliance are
(07:54):
often the same, they draw from the same ones, and
then insetting is a little bit different.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Interesting, So you mentioned the idea of high quality and measurable.
I think kind of the lack of high quality offsets
and the lack of you know, perhaps measurement has led
to some volatility historically, especially in the voluntary markets. So
curious to hear ultimately how exposed you are to that volatility.
(08:21):
Even if your credits or the credits that you're generating
are you know, high quality, you know, you may still
have exposure to how the overall markets move. And I guess,
you know, the follow up question would be are you
able to maintain a specific price per ton given the
quality that you're ultimately providing to the market.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
The volatility is really an issue in the volunteer markets.
But in the compliance markets, we've been seeing prices go
up quite a bit. The UTS is at seventy years
a ton, and that's not a niche market. The entire
compliance cap and trade markets have crossed over trillion dollars
per year one percent of world GDP, which really wasn't
(09:04):
something we thought would happen ten years ago. But the
volatility is something that, especially in the volunteer market, is
something that is an issue both for us and for
the people purchasing these and so long term off take
agreements is a good tool to protect us from volatility
and give us some predictability and lower cost of capital,
and also for the offset purchasers to allow them to
(09:28):
be protected from the prices going up. On the insetting side.
Those markets are in yours, so we haven't seen as
much volatility, but they are still getting defined.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Absolutely so curious to hear how many tons of CO
two you're mitigating today and do you ultimately have a
goal for the company going forward.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Yes, so we've mitigated four thousand tons of U to
eat just this summer from a few livestock installations. This
is more than all of the director capture come companies
have mitigated combined. So this is a very cost effective,
ready to go now methodology that is as high quality
and going forward, the sources that the methane sources that
(10:14):
our technology is a great fit for is about two
point two gigaton conservatively of CO two E per year.
That's kind of like twice all of the vehicles in
the US, and so even a small fraction of that
really means that we can we can have very meaningful
impact on climate change.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Interesting, and maybe to follow upon that idea of having
meaningful impact on climate change, I understand that there are
some kind of co benefits of these projects. Maybe you
could walk us through some of those as well.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
When we cover a manure pond, it keeps all of
that rain water out right. Any of the rain goes
on top of the of the pond instead of getting
mixed in with the dirty water. And what this means
is that there's no risk of overflow and that the
farmers now truck less of the manure onto the fields.
By the way, the manure is used as fertilizer on
(11:06):
the field, often to grow the crops that are then
being fed back to the animals. So the farmers are
working real hard to give us a glass of milk,
and the animal genetics, the crops, and all of this
infrastructure to handle the waste. In addition, the smells almost
entirely go away with our projects. There's bigger quality benefits
(11:26):
and a lot of the nitrogen stays into in the
manure and so it is better fertilizer. So these are
all very massive benefits, but the projects are too expensive
that just those benefits by themselves would not pay for
the full projects. This is why the carbon market input
is so necessary.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Very interesting, So I understand you've gotten funding from various
venture groups, including Climate Capital and Lower Carbon Capital. Can
you walk us through the process you went through from
the initial idea through to where the company is now
and talk about how you've worked with these partners and funders.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
We originally had the idea and gathered a team of volunteers,
so this was originally a side project and our first
installation was in the permafrost before we even got any funding.
But as we kept looking into this, it was obvious
that the problem was a lot larger than these concentrated
events in the permafrost. So that's where we approached Climate
Capital and Lower Carbon and these early stage high risk,
(12:28):
very mission motivated capital partners, and that, in addition to
non private ones like a grand that we had from
our pree, really allowed us to get from an idea
and prototype to a much more productionized system that we
have today. So today we have a system that can
(12:50):
destroy a variety of these flows and gas compositions that
vary from the source day to day. We have a
software system that allows very percon ice measurement that also
detects anomalies and kicks that up to our operator, and
our operator can look at that and have remote control,
and so we can keep this running with very high
(13:12):
up time, with very high measurement precision, without getting the
farmer or the landowner involved. Right, we can resolve very
large number of these issues remotely and once in a
while send out one of our folks there if that's
an issue, but that's quite rare, and so getting the
automation to the point not almost all of this is
figured out, and if it ever gets kicked into an operator,
(13:34):
that gets wrapped into our software and next time that
gets handled automatically. So that package of things is really
what that early capital got us, right. It got us
to a product that farmers want. It got us to
fueld deployments, and now we're approaching the capital partners that
are more into the scale up right the ones where
(13:57):
that really really high risk is already gone, and now
we want to have every farm in the US use
our technology. So that's where we approach other capital partners
that are slightly later staged in order to get it
widely deployed.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
And what are ultimately the biggest barriers to scaling up
at this point then.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
So right now we're in the process of productizing our
system and getting it into the domestic manufacturing. So we've
just had our first run with a manufacturer in western
New York State, not super far from here. The technology
is already working in the field, so this is fantastic.
We are getting all sorts of stakeholders to come out
(14:40):
see working see the co benefits. We're working with Cornell
to quantify the benefits on a poor farm basis rather
than averages, and we're looking for additional customers and additional
farmers to work with because this is really a great
time for us to scale up and the partners coming
in now are really bearing a lot less risk. We
(15:00):
are incredibly grateful to the farmers that were willing to
start working with us, as we still had a few
kinks to work out.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
So a lot is made these days of policy and
the implications of current policy on all things climate. Curious
to hear from you what the current policy environment looks
like for you or for frost methane and what would
ultimately be most beneficial in supporting your business.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
That's a really great question. The policy landscape is changing
very quickly and that uncertainty, I think is challenging for
all the businesses, including for the farmers that we work with,
So we are extremely, extremely motivated to be able to
get them additional capital in order to be able to
adjust to this. On the compliance side, it happens to
(15:52):
be that the markets in the United States are state
driven rather than federal driven, and those policies have been
quite stable, so it's nice that at least on the
revenue side there is stability. Our manufacturing is done in
the United States and so those policies are less of
an effect. Currently we're doing it a little bit more
(16:13):
by hand, but we've started the manufacturering runs with the
partners in New York State, so I think that should
be This insulates us from some of the policy impacts
that we've been seeing wonderful.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
So maybe taking a look ahead, where do you ultimately
see frost methane in five to ten years.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
We would love to be on almost every source that
we are a good fit for in the far future,
in the more midtrum future, a fully productionized system that
works with almost no intervention, definitely no interventions from the farmers,
occasional maintenance from our team, with like hundreds of installations
(16:57):
millions of hours of operations is the kind of first goal,
and we're excited to be working with farmers, manufacturers, deployment partners,
and the customers that are purchasing the offsets or the
sculpture reductions or the insets in order to ensure that
we have cleaner air, strong agriculture, reduce the need for
(17:18):
various nitrogen inputs, both domestically and eventually internationally.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Fascinating stuff, Olia, Thank you so much for taking the
time to join us.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Thank you for the great questions. And I have to say,
during this time, I think we've reduced at least a
couple of tons of CU two you while we've been chatting.
We're sitting here and it's doing it. The tech is
doing its job in the field, and that's the beauty
of automation.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Wonderful, that is beauty indeed. So for more information on
all things ESG, please head to our dashboard on the
Bloomberg terminal via bi space ESG go, and if you
have a question or topic you'd like us to cover
in the future, please reach out to us at ESG
currents at Bloomberg dot net. Thank you so much for listening,
(18:03):
and we'll see you next time.
ESG is constantly evolving. Over the years, it has shifted
from socially responsible investing to impact to sustainable finance. While
the terminology continues to change, what hasn't changed are the
underlying science, market pressures, and tangible physical and financial impacts
of the climate crisis, increasing regulatory scrutiny, and rising consumer expectations.
(00:34):
We aim to filter out the noise by speaking with
industry experts to identify what is really driving value. Welcome
to ESG Currents. I'm Eric Kaine, director of ESG Research
for Bloomberg Intelligence, and today we're talking about methane. According
to the IEA's twenty twenty five Global Methane Tracker, methane
(00:55):
is responsible for around thirty percent of the current rise
in global time temperatures. The gas has more than eighty
times the warming potential of CO two over a twenty
twenty year period, and the tracker estimates global methane emissions
to be about six hundred and ten million tons annually,
with human activity responsible for almost two thirds. The energy
(01:19):
sector accounts for about one hundred and forty five million tons,
while agriculture accounts for more than one hundred and sixty
million tons. Which brings us to today's guests, Olya Irzak,
who is the founder and CEO of Frost Methane, a
company that is working to address methane emissions from livestock
and other sources. Olia, welcome to the program, and thank
(01:41):
you so much for taking the time to join us
here in New York.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Wonderful. So let's dive right in and maybe we can
have you start with a description of frost methane and
the problem that you're ultimately trying to solve.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
For So, frost methane is about keeping waste methane out
of the atmosphere and helping valorize that waste pollution stream
and adding a revenue stream to hardworking farmers and landowners
that partner with us. We do this by having developed
a technology that captures destroys and measures very specifically these
(02:15):
methane sources.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Wonderful. So, I think you know one thing right off
the bat that may have surprise listeners is that you
aren't looking at oil and gas facilities, which I think
many of us often think about when we think about methane.
Can you explain why that is and what the size
of the addressable methane is for methane from the sources
that you're ultimately looking at.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Yes, so oil and gas is about twenty eight percent
of methane emissions in the US and something like twenty
two worldwide. But because it is so tightly associated for
everybody as kind of the methane problem, lots of investments
and lots of companies have developed a wide variety of
solutions for this. Right, So we're talking like hundreds of companies,
(02:59):
probably at least several billion dollars in funding. But there
are the other sources which are an overlooked opportunity, and
these are the sources that we're going after. So we're
looking at the sources that our technology is will good
fit for something like thirty one to forty percent of
the methane that you see today, and the market size
(03:19):
depends on local policies worldwide, but we put it at
least forty four billion dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Very interesting, And I think another immediate question is, you
know the idea of flaring the methane instead of capturing
the methane. So I assume this has to do with
available infrastructure to potentially store or transport the captured gas.
But curious to hear more of my assumption is correct.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean it all has to do with
the economics of getting the gas to somewhere useful, and
as you mentioned, infrastructure is incredibly important. These are typically
far from the pipelines, but also the quality of the gas.
So one of the challenges for a lot of the
sources that we deal with is this isn't like oil
(04:05):
and gas kind of flares right where we're talking ninety
eight percent methane. The gas we tackle it could be
thirty percent methane one day in the gas stream, seventy
five percent the next day, very low in the winter,
very high in the summer, Lots of htos and other
nasties in the gas, and so the cost of being
(04:26):
able to separate that and go, you know, truck it
to the nearest pipeline may work for very large farms
and for the like four hundred largest farms in the US,
people do do this, but then all of the other ones,
like the large and medium ones can't actually participate in
these markets. So that pushes towards consolidation. Right, So we
(04:48):
believe that there should be a solution for medium and
large farms to be able to participate in these markets
as well. And so the first step is, let's destroy
the methane, get them a revenue source, and measure very
specifically the trace other gases that make these very difficult
to work with. And if we find sources that are small,
(05:09):
less hds or closure to the pipeline, we may be
able to do something productive with that. But step one
is destroy, valorize, and measure. Step two is calculate, based
on the specific qualities of the source, whether we can
do something else with it as well.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Very interesting, so you use the term destroy the methane,
so you know my understanding, of course, is that by
flaring the methane, you're ultimately destroying it, converting it into
CO two and thereby obviously reducing the warming potential and
also thereby earning carbon credits accordingly, which you then sell.
(05:49):
Can you describe how the credits are ultimately accredited and
how you interact with both the regulatory and voluntary carbon markets.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Absolutely the credits. Methin gets turned one my loocal of method,
gets turned into one molecule of CO two, and when
methane decomposes in the atmosphere, it eventually turns into co two. Anyways,
it just traps all of these heat and actually contributes
to smog in between when it gets emitted and when
it gets destroyed. We speed up that process and that's
(06:23):
what the market s pay us for. So there's three
kinds of markets that we can participate in compliance, So
California Cap and Trade, Reggie Washington, Cabin Trade, they all
accept this type of methodology, like this type of project
because it is so so highly measurable and high quality.
There's what's called in setting markets. So this is very
(06:45):
popular within the food industry where these are offsets, but
within the supply chain, and you can see big announcements
by Nestle and by Mars having allocated quite a bit
of money for decarbonization of their supply chain. And then
there is purely volunteering markets, right, and all of those
three are reasonably different, but in all of them there
(07:08):
is a third party verifier that comes out physically to
our site and checks our data. And these are really
high scrutiny for our project types. They even check how
frequently we calibrate our sensors, because of course all chemical
sensors drift. So really well thought out methodology compared to
some of what we're seeing, and so we install the project.
(07:31):
Within a year, we get a third party verifier to
come out, and only then can we issue the credits
from the beginning of the project until that verifier comes out,
and then the same thing the year after that. So
we never issue the credits ahead of the third party verifier.
The registries that we use for voluntary and compliance are
(07:54):
often the same, they draw from the same ones, and
then insetting is a little bit different.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Interesting, So you mentioned the idea of high quality and measurable.
I think kind of the lack of high quality offsets
and the lack of you know, perhaps measurement has led
to some volatility historically, especially in the voluntary markets. So
curious to hear ultimately how exposed you are to that volatility.
(08:21):
Even if your credits or the credits that you're generating
are you know, high quality, you know, you may still
have exposure to how the overall markets move. And I guess,
you know, the follow up question would be are you
able to maintain a specific price per ton given the
quality that you're ultimately providing to the market.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
The volatility is really an issue in the volunteer markets.
But in the compliance markets, we've been seeing prices go
up quite a bit. The UTS is at seventy years
a ton, and that's not a niche market. The entire
compliance cap and trade markets have crossed over trillion dollars
per year one percent of world GDP, which really wasn't
(09:04):
something we thought would happen ten years ago. But the
volatility is something that, especially in the volunteer market, is
something that is an issue both for us and for
the people purchasing these and so long term off take
agreements is a good tool to protect us from volatility
and give us some predictability and lower cost of capital,
and also for the offset purchasers to allow them to
(09:28):
be protected from the prices going up. On the insetting side.
Those markets are in yours, so we haven't seen as
much volatility, but they are still getting defined.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Absolutely so curious to hear how many tons of CO
two you're mitigating today and do you ultimately have a
goal for the company going forward.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Yes, so we've mitigated four thousand tons of U to
eat just this summer from a few livestock installations. This
is more than all of the director capture come companies
have mitigated combined. So this is a very cost effective,
ready to go now methodology that is as high quality
and going forward, the sources that the methane sources that
(10:14):
our technology is a great fit for is about two
point two gigaton conservatively of CO two E per year.
That's kind of like twice all of the vehicles in
the US, and so even a small fraction of that
really means that we can we can have very meaningful
impact on climate change.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Interesting, and maybe to follow upon that idea of having
meaningful impact on climate change, I understand that there are
some kind of co benefits of these projects. Maybe you
could walk us through some of those as well.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
When we cover a manure pond, it keeps all of
that rain water out right. Any of the rain goes
on top of the of the pond instead of getting
mixed in with the dirty water. And what this means
is that there's no risk of overflow and that the
farmers now truck less of the manure onto the fields.
By the way, the manure is used as fertilizer on
(11:06):
the field, often to grow the crops that are then
being fed back to the animals. So the farmers are
working real hard to give us a glass of milk,
and the animal genetics, the crops, and all of this
infrastructure to handle the waste. In addition, the smells almost
entirely go away with our projects. There's bigger quality benefits
(11:26):
and a lot of the nitrogen stays into in the
manure and so it is better fertilizer. So these are
all very massive benefits, but the projects are too expensive
that just those benefits by themselves would not pay for
the full projects. This is why the carbon market input
is so necessary.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Very interesting, So I understand you've gotten funding from various
venture groups, including Climate Capital and Lower Carbon Capital. Can
you walk us through the process you went through from
the initial idea through to where the company is now
and talk about how you've worked with these partners and funders.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
We originally had the idea and gathered a team of volunteers,
so this was originally a side project and our first
installation was in the permafrost before we even got any funding.
But as we kept looking into this, it was obvious
that the problem was a lot larger than these concentrated
events in the permafrost. So that's where we approached Climate
Capital and Lower Carbon and these early stage high risk,
(12:28):
very mission motivated capital partners, and that, in addition to
non private ones like a grand that we had from
our pree, really allowed us to get from an idea
and prototype to a much more productionized system that we
have today. So today we have a system that can
(12:50):
destroy a variety of these flows and gas compositions that
vary from the source day to day. We have a
software system that allows very percon ice measurement that also
detects anomalies and kicks that up to our operator, and
our operator can look at that and have remote control,
and so we can keep this running with very high
(13:12):
up time, with very high measurement precision, without getting the
farmer or the landowner involved. Right, we can resolve very
large number of these issues remotely and once in a
while send out one of our folks there if that's
an issue, but that's quite rare, and so getting the
automation to the point not almost all of this is
figured out, and if it ever gets kicked into an operator,
(13:34):
that gets wrapped into our software and next time that
gets handled automatically. So that package of things is really
what that early capital got us, right. It got us
to a product that farmers want. It got us to
fueld deployments, and now we're approaching the capital partners that
are more into the scale up right the ones where
(13:57):
that really really high risk is already gone, and now
we want to have every farm in the US use
our technology. So that's where we approach other capital partners
that are slightly later staged in order to get it
widely deployed.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
And what are ultimately the biggest barriers to scaling up
at this point then.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
So right now we're in the process of productizing our
system and getting it into the domestic manufacturing. So we've
just had our first run with a manufacturer in western
New York State, not super far from here. The technology
is already working in the field, so this is fantastic.
We are getting all sorts of stakeholders to come out
(14:40):
see working see the co benefits. We're working with Cornell
to quantify the benefits on a poor farm basis rather
than averages, and we're looking for additional customers and additional
farmers to work with because this is really a great
time for us to scale up and the partners coming
in now are really bearing a lot less risk. We
(15:00):
are incredibly grateful to the farmers that were willing to
start working with us, as we still had a few
kinks to work out.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
So a lot is made these days of policy and
the implications of current policy on all things climate. Curious
to hear from you what the current policy environment looks
like for you or for frost methane and what would
ultimately be most beneficial in supporting your business.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
That's a really great question. The policy landscape is changing
very quickly and that uncertainty, I think is challenging for
all the businesses, including for the farmers that we work with,
So we are extremely, extremely motivated to be able to
get them additional capital in order to be able to
adjust to this. On the compliance side, it happens to
(15:52):
be that the markets in the United States are state
driven rather than federal driven, and those policies have been
quite stable, so it's nice that at least on the
revenue side there is stability. Our manufacturing is done in
the United States and so those policies are less of
an effect. Currently we're doing it a little bit more
(16:13):
by hand, but we've started the manufacturering runs with the
partners in New York State, so I think that should
be This insulates us from some of the policy impacts
that we've been seeing wonderful.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
So maybe taking a look ahead, where do you ultimately
see frost methane in five to ten years.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
We would love to be on almost every source that
we are a good fit for in the far future,
in the more midtrum future, a fully productionized system that
works with almost no intervention, definitely no interventions from the farmers,
occasional maintenance from our team, with like hundreds of installations
(16:57):
millions of hours of operations is the kind of first goal,
and we're excited to be working with farmers, manufacturers, deployment partners,
and the customers that are purchasing the offsets or the
sculpture reductions or the insets in order to ensure that
we have cleaner air, strong agriculture, reduce the need for
(17:18):
various nitrogen inputs, both domestically and eventually internationally.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Fascinating stuff, Olia, Thank you so much for taking the
time to join us.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Thank you for the great questions. And I have to say,
during this time, I think we've reduced at least a
couple of tons of CU two you while we've been chatting.
We're sitting here and it's doing it. The tech is
doing its job in the field, and that's the beauty
of automation.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Wonderful, that is beauty indeed. So for more information on
all things ESG, please head to our dashboard on the
Bloomberg terminal via bi space ESG go, and if you
have a question or topic you'd like us to cover
in the future, please reach out to us at ESG
currents at Bloomberg dot net. Thank you so much for listening,
(18:03):
and we'll see you next time.
Host
Eric Kane
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.