Industrial gases: air separation units?

Cryogenic air separation is used to produce 400MTpa of oxygen, plus pure nitrogen and argon; for steel, metals, ammonia, wind-solar inputs, semi-conductors, blue hydrogen and Allam cycle oxy-combustion. Hence this 16-page report is an overview of industrial gases. How does air separation work? What costs, energy use and CO2 intensity? Who benefits amidst the energy transition?

Top Public Companies In Energy Transition

Top public companies in energy transition

Some of the top public companies in energy transition are aggregated in this data-file, looking across over 1,000 items of research into the energy transition published to date by Thunder Said Energy.


The data file should be useful for subscription clients of Thunder Said Energy, if you are looking for a helpful summary of all of our research to-date, how it reflects upon public companies, and links to explore those companies in more detail, across our other research.

Specifically, the file allows you to filter different companies according to (a) listing country (b) size — i,e., small-cap, mid-cap, large-cap, mega-cap (c) Sector — e.g., energy, materials, capital goods, OEMs (d) TSE research — and whether the work we had done made us incrementally more optimistic, or cautious, on this company’s role generating economic returns while advancing the energy transition.

A back-up tab then reviews all of our research to date, going back to 2019, and how we think that specific research conclusion might impact upon specific companies. This exercise is not entirely perfect, due to the large number of themes, criss-crossing a large number of companies, at a large number of different points in time. Hence the observations in this data-file should not be interpreted as investment recommendations.

The screen is updated monthly. At the latest update, in January-2023, it contains 324 differentiated views on 162 top public companies in energy transition.

Energy economics: an overview?

Overview of Energy Economics

This data-file provides an overview of energy economics: 150 different economic models constructed by Thunder Said Energy, in order to help you put numbers in context. This helps to compare marginal costs, capex costs, opex costs and other key parameters of technologies and materials that matter in the energy transition.


Specifically, the model provides summary economic ratios from our different economic models across conventional power, renewables, conventional fuels, lower-carbon fuels, manufacturing processes, infrastructure, transportation and nature-based solutions.

For example, EBIT margins range from 3-70%, cash margins range from 4-85% and net margins range from 2-50%, hence you can use the data-file to ballpark what constitutes a “good” margin, sub-sector by sub-sector.

Likewise capital intensity ranges from $300-9,000kWe, $5-7,500/Tpa and $4-125M/kboed. So again, if you are trying to ballpark a cost estimate you can compare it with the estimated costs of other processes.

Renewables stand out. Despite high capital intensity (34% of revenues, 2x the average), once constructed, they also have the highest cash margins (76%, also 2x the average).

Low-carbon fuels and manufacturing/materials are similar. Both tend to have c20% average EBIT margins, after deducting 70-75% opex and c5-10% capex shares. This makes sense, as low-carbon fuels are effectively “manufactured” energy products.

The most exciting opportunities can also be picked out. They are clustered in the top-left of the chart, with high EBIT margins, low capital intensity and low costs once they are up-and-running.

Full data are available in the data-file below. To read the overview of energy economics send to our distribution list, please see our article here. All of the underlying economic models that feed into this data-file are available here.

Hydrogen: overview and conclusions?

Hydrogen best opportunities?

The best opportunities for hydrogen in the energy transition will be to decarbonize gas at source via blue and turquoise hydrogen, displacing ‘black hydrogen’ that currently comes from coal, and to produce small-scale feedstock on site via electrolysis for select industries. Some see green hydrogen becoming widespread in the future energy system. We think there may be options elsewhere, to drive more decarbonization, with lower costs, lower losses and higher practicality.



(1) Green hydrogen economy? Our main question mark is over “economy”. Costs are modeled at $7/kg, equivalent to $70/mcf natural gas, after generating renewable electricity, electrolysing water into hydrogen and storing the hydrogen. Levelized costs of electricity then reach 60-80c/kWh, for generating clean electricity in a fuel cell power plant, yielding a CO2 abatement cost of $600-1,200/ton (note here). We think costs matter in the energy transition and the entire world can be decarbonized via other means, for an average cost of $40/ton in the TSE roadmap to net zero.

(2) Fuels derived from green hydrogen are by definition going to be more expensive than the hydrogen itself. We have evaluated electro-fuels, green methanol, sustainable aviation fuels, hydrogen trucks, again finding CO2 abatement costs above $1,000/ton. Again, we think transportation can be decarbonized cost-effectively via other means.

(3) How much can capex costs come down? There is an aspiration for electrolyser costs (presently around $1,000/kW on a full, installed basis) to deflate by over 75%. However, we have reviewed electrolyser costs line by line and wonder whether 15-25% deflation is more realistic (note here). Alkaline electrolysers vs PEMs are contrasted here. We have recently screened NEL’s patents to explore future cost deflation in electrolysers.

(4) Efficiency: the second law of thermodynamics. The absolute magic of renewables and electrification is their thermodynamics. These technologies can be 85-95% efficient end-to-end, precisely controlled, and ultra-powerful. A world-changing improvement on heat engines and an energy mega-trend for the 21st century. However, the thermodynamics of hydrogen depart from the trend, converting high-quality electricity back into a fuel. The maximum theoretical efficiency of water electrolysis is 83% (entropy increases). Real world electrolysers will be c65% efficient. End-to-end hydrogen value chains will be c30-50% efficient. We want to decarbonize the global energy system. It therefore seems strange to take 100MWH of usable, high-grade, low-carbon electricity, and convert it into 40MWH of hydrogen energy, when you could have displaced 100MWH of high-carbon electricity directly (e.g., from coal). And all the more so, amidst painful energy shortages.

(5) Backing up renewables? It is often argued that renewables will eventually become so abundant, especially during windy/sunny moments, that the inputs to hydrogen electrolysers will become free. We think this is a fantasy. Instead, industrial facilities and consumers will demand shift. Conversely, we are not even sure an electrolyser can run off of a volatile renewables input feed without incurring 5-10% pa degradation, or worse (if you read one TSE note on green hydrogen, we recommend this one).

(6) Operations, transport, logistics all feel strangely challenging. Our studies of patents suggest that electrolysers and fuel cells can be the Goldilocks of energy equipment. Past installations have declined at over 5% per year. Due to its small molecular size, 35-75% of hydrogen produced in today’s reformers can be lost. Some vehicles seek to store hydrogen fuel at 10,000 psi, which is 1.5x the pressure of hydraulic fracturing. Even in the space industry, rocket makers have been de-prioritizing hydrogen in favor of LNG (!) because of logistical issues. The costs of hydrogen transport will be 2-10x higher than comparable gas value chains, while up to 50% of the embedded energy may be lost in transportation: our overview into hydrogen transport is here, covering cryogenic trucks, hydrogen pipelines, pipeline blending, ammonia and toluene. Is a hydrogen truck really comparable with a diesel truck? (note here, models here). Finally, the gas industry is bending over backwards to stem methane leaks, due to methane’s GWP of 25x CO2, but hydrogen itself may have a GWP as high as 13x CO2.

(7) Will policy help? We are not sure. We are tempted to draw analogies to the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, bequeathed $88bn of US government money in 1980 amidst the oil shocks, which in today’s money is similar to the $325bn Inflation Reduction Act. It completely missed its targets of unleashing 2Mbpd of synfuels by 1992, due to challenging economics, thermodynamics, technical issues, logistical issues. What evidence can we find that green hydrogen will prove different to this historical case study?

(8) Niche applications can however be very interesting, where clean hydrogen is used as an industrial feedstock. An overview of today’s 110MTpa hydrogen market is here and underlying data are here. At large scale, we are currently most excited by using clean hydrogen in ammonia value chains and steel value chains, as the technology is fully mature and looking highly economical. It is also booming in the US. Elsewhere, an excellent large-scale application is to displace black hydrogen (made from coal), which is 20% of today’s hydrogen market and has a staggering CO2 intensity of 25 tons/ton. At smaller scale, there is also a weird and wonderful industrial landscape, using hydrogen to make products such as margarine or automotive glass. Putting an electrolyser on site beats shipping in hydrogen via cryogenic trucks. But these are also quite niche applications.

(9) Blue hydrogen is the most economical, low-carbon hydrogen concept we have found. Effectively this is decarbonizing natural gas at source, by reforming the methane molecule into H2 and CO2, the latter of which is sent directly for CCS. Our best overview of the topic is linked here. There are still c15% energy penalties. Costs are $1-1.5/kg in our models, to eliminate c90% of natural gas CO2.

(10) Turquoise hydrogen is also among the more interesting concepts, pyrolysing the methane molecule at 600-1,200◦C into H2 and carbon black. Our base case cost is $2/kg, with a $500/kg price for carbon black. But if you can realize $1,000/kg for the carbon black, you could give the hydrogen away for free. We have screened patents from Monolith and expect others to come to market with technologies and projects.



Around 40 reports and data-files into hydrogen have led us to these conclusions above; listed in chronological order on our hydrogen category page. The best way to access our PDF reports and data-files is through a subscription to TSE research.



Energy storage: top conclusions into batteries?

Conclusions into batteries

Thunder Said Energy is a research firm focused on economic opportunities that drive the energy transition. Our top ten conclusions into batteries and energy storage are summarized below, looking across all of our research.



(1) Transportation: a revolution. Gasoline and diesel vehicles are 15-25% efficient, on a wagon to wheel basis, due to immutable laws of thermodynamics. Electric vehicles using lithium ion batteries are 75-95% efficient. The technology is only getting better, including via power electronics and electric motors. So this is a game changer for light transportation, which becomes >70% electric in our oil models by 2050.

(2) Bottlenecks in battery materials will set the limit on the scale up. Numerically, the largest bottlenecks are in lithium; followed by fluorinated polymers and battery-grade nickel; then graphite and copper. We are less worried about cobalt. Our best data-file into materials used in a lithium ion battery, and their costs, is linked here.

(3) Power grids: efficiency drawbacks. Amidst materials bottlenecks, we think vehicle applications will generally outcompete grid applications. While an EV is 3-4x more efficient than what it replaces, grid scale storage usually has a 10%+ energy penalty. Thus the 65kWh battery in a typical EV saves 2-4x more energy and 25-150% more CO2 each year than a typical grid battery (note here).

(4) Power grids: the best battery is no battery. All batteries have a cost, usually $1,000-2,000/kW, which is re-couped through a storage spread, usually around 20c/kWh for daily charging-discharging (model here). Conversely, there are many loads in the power grid that can shift their demand (e.g., to the times when grids are over-saturated with renewables). This often has no cost. And no efficiency losses. Some of our favorite examples are catalogued here.

(5) Power grids: short-term first. The biggest challenges for ramping up wind and solar stem from short-term volatility (inertia, reactive power compensation, frequency regulation, <1-minute power drops). This requires short-term energy storage first, in the 2020s and 2030s. Many short term batteries can also earn their keep through recuperative energy savings. But note short term energy storage favors capacitor banks, STATCOMs, flywheels, synchronous condensers, supercapacitors. It is debatable whether lithium ion is well suited to short-term smoothing. Eaton has even recently started integrating supercapacitors into its industrial batteries, amidst increasing customer demand for short-term performance (case studies here).

(6) Long-term storage is for the 2040s, if at all. If you cycle your battery 10 times per day, you amortize its capex across 3,650 cycles per year, and the cost per cycle is <1c/kWh. Cycle 1 time per day, and it is 10-20c/kWh. Cycle 1 time per month and you are well above 200c/kWh. The maths are reviewed here. You can also stress test numbers in our pumped hydro model, other battery models. So we do not think long term storage (via batteries or hydrogen) will ever come into the money. We see more opportunity in long-distance power transmission, decarbonized gas, next-gen nuclear; fully decarbonizing future grids while keeping costs below 10-20c/kWh.

(7) Density will improve, but not enough for mass deployment of battery trucks, ships or planes. Today’s lithium ion batteries store 200Wh/kg. Oil products contain 12,000Wh/kg. Thus a battery-powered Class 8 truck will have 70-80% lower range than a diesel truck. And a battery-powered plane has a range of c60-miles. We do not currently see battery powered trucks, ships or planes going mainstream before 2050.

(8) Next-gen batteries: can we de-risk them? There is constant progress and innovation in batteries, to improve density, duration, chemistry, longevity, cost, charging speeds. So we are constantly screening patent libraries. As a general rule we have found incremental innovations easier to de-risk. But we have been less able to de-risk big changes. Replacing lithium with sodium has issues with ionic radius. Solid state batteries often have issues with dendrites and longevity. Redox flow likely works but has 70-75% efficiency.

(9) End-of-life is most unresolved. If there is one TSE research note on batteries, which we think decision-makers should read it is this one, explaining battery degradation, the best antidotes and their implications (lithium upside?, manufacturer upside?). This matters, because despite some interesting inroads, we still do not think the industry has really cracked battery recycling, a potential $100bn pa market in the 2040s.

(10) Which battery companies? We have been most impressed by manufacturing technologies from 24M and CATL, followed by integrated battery offerings from Eaton, Stem and Powin. There are some interesting innovations from Amprius, Enovix, Quantumscape. But so far, we have found it more challenging to entirely de-risk concepts from Sila, Form Energy, Solid Power, Storedot. Please email us if there are any battery technologies you would like us to explore.




Around 60 reports and data-files into batteries and energy storage have led us to these conclusions above; listed in chronological order on our batteries category page. The best way to access our PDF reports and data-files is through a subscription to TSE research.



LNG: top conclusions in the energy transition?

LNG in the energy transition

Thunder Said Energy is a research firm focused on economic opportunities that drive the energy transition. Our top ten conclusions into LNG are summarized below, looking across all of our research.



(1) LNG markets treble in our energy transition roadmap, rising from 400MTpa today to 1,100MTpa by 2050, for a c4% CAGR. The main reason is to displace coal, which is 2x more CO2 intensive. This LNG growth rate is 1.5x faster than total global natural gas supply growth, which “merely doubles” from 400bcfd to 800bcfd, for a 2.5% CAGR. The world needs $20bn of new liquefaction capex per year. Our LNG outlook through 2050 is modeled here.

(2) Marginal cost is $10/mcf as a rule-of-thumb for the 2020s. This is summing up the economics across the entire value chain for gas production, gas processing, pipeline transportation, LNG liquefaction, LNG shipping and LNG regasification. The best projects work at $7/mcf. But prices will run well above marginal cost amidst under-supply.

(3) Under-supply in 2023-28 in our supply model augurs for $15-40/mcf spot global LNG prices. After adding +20MTpa of new LNG supplies each year from 2015 to 2022, we think the world will be lucky to add +10MTpa in 2023 and 2024. There is always a further risk of supply disruptions. Meanwhile, Europe’s 15bcfd of Russian gas imports, volumetrically equivalent to 110MTpa of LNG, are shifting. The best note covering our gas outlook is linked here and our European gas models are linked here.

(4) The key challenge is CO2. Liquefying natural gas at -160C requires 300-400kWh/ton of energy, depending on the LNG plant design. This results in 3-4 kg/mcf of Scope 1+2 CO2. Across the value chain, LNG will have 7-10kg/mcf of Scope 1+2 CO2. Adding the Scope 3 from combustion, we reach total CO2 intensity of 60-65kg/mcf. Coal is 130kg/mcfe. Yet it feels like we could die of energy shortages before gas critics listen to “relative CO2” reasoning and countenance long-term LNG contracts.

(5) Rising to the challenge. The LNG industry can satisfy its skeptics. This is earnestly happening. It includes measuring CO2 in LNG supply chains. Then offsetting it via nature-based CO2 removals. Or capturing CO2 from combustion, then sharing regas terminal infrastructure to liquefy it, and ship it away for disposal. We have written a full note on back-carrying CO2 here. CO2 abatement costs range from $50-125/ton, or $3.0-7.5/mcfe. This scores well on our cost curves.

(6) 2020s supply growth will be dominated by the US, which is particularly well placed to assuage gas shortages in Europe. US LNG can treble from 70MTpa in 2021 to 200MTpa by 2030. It requires an extra 17bcfd of gas (c18% total US gas supply growth), which in turn pulls on E&P activity in the Haynesville, Permian and Marcellus.

(7) Longer term supply growth will be dominated by the Middle East, which is particularly well placed to phase out China’s coal. These numbers are mind-blowing. As an idea, if China directly substituted all 4GTpa of its coal (10GTpa of CO2 emissions!), this would require 1,600 MTpa of LNG, i.e., 4x more than today’s entire global LNG market. If you read one note, to understand this topic, we would recommend this one.

(8) Smaller-scale LNG and transport upside? We have reviewed opportunities in LNG in transport, smaller-scale LNG, LNG-fueled trucks, LNG-fueled ships, eliminating methane slip, LNG fuelling stations, small fixed LNG plants, floating LNG plants. There are some interesting concepts, especially for specific applications. But we have not materially de-risked smaller-scale LNG upside in our numbers yet.

(9) Cyclical industries reward counter-cyclical behaviours, and LNG is deeply cyclical. The title chart above shows this nicely, with spurts of growth, punctuated by plateaus, once per decade. It always feels uncomfortable to sanction projects when others are not. But our view is that bravery gets rewarded. “If you build it, the demand will come”.

(10) Companies. Incumbents benefit most from under-supply in the 2020s. Upcoming projects and their sponsors are summarized in our LNG supply model. We have also screened LNG shipping companies. But the question that fascinates us most is whether upcoming project sponsors can avoid the cost inflation that marred the past cycle, with some interesting evidence from patents in our note here.




Around 45 reports and data-files into LNG have led us to these conclusions above; listed in chronological order on our LNG category page. The best way to access our PDF reports and data-files is through a subscription to TSE research.



Power grids: opportunities in the energy transition?

power grid opportunities in the energy transition

This article summarizes our conclusions into power grids and power electronics, across all of Thunder Said Energy’s research. Where are the best power grid opportunities in the energy transition?

Power grids move electricity from the point of generation to the point of use, while aiming to maximize power quality, minimize costs and minimize losses. Broadly defined, global power grids and power electronics investment must step up 5x in the energy transition, from $750bn pa to over $3.5trn pa. This theme gets woefully overlooked. This also means it offers up some of the best opportunities in the energy transition.


(1) Electrification is going to be a major theme in the energy transition, a mega-trend of the 21st century, as the efficiency and controllability of electrified technology is usually 3-5x higher than comparable heat engines. It is analogous to the shift from analogue to digital. 40% of the world’s useful energy is consumed as electricity today, rising to 60% by 2050 (note here — our best overview of the upside in grids) propelling the efficiency of the primary global energy system from 45% today to 60% by 2050 (note here). Power demands of a typical home will also double from 10kW to 20kW in the energy transition (data here). Electricity demands of industrial facilities are aggregated here.

(2) Electricity basics are often misunderstood? If we have one salty observation about power markets, it is that many commentators seem to love making sweeping statements without understanding much at all. It is the energy market equivalent of wandering in off the street to an operating theater, and without any medical training at all, simply picking up a scalpel. This is a little bit sad. But it also means there will be opportunities for decision makers that do understand electricity and power systems. As a place to start, our primer on power, voltage, current, AC, DC, inertia and power quality is here.

(3) Power generation costs 5-15c/kWh. But variations within each category are much wider than between category (note here). So generation will not be a winner takes all market, where one “energy source to rule them all” pushes out all the others. This view comes from stress testing IRR models of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, gas, coal, biomass, diesel gensets and geothermal. And from 400-years of energy history. The average sizes of power generation facilities are here, and typical ramp rates are here.

(4) Transmission is becoming the key bottleneck on renewables and electrification in the energy transition. Each TWH pa of global electricity demand is supported by 275km of power transmission and 4,000km of distribution (data here). Connecting a new project to the grid usually costs $100-300/kW over 10-70km tie-in distances (data here). But bottlenecks are growing. The approval times to connect a new power plant to the grid have already increased 2.5x since the mid-2000s, averaging 3-years, especially for wind and solar, which take 30% and 10% longer than average (data here). Avoiding these bottlenecks requires power grids to expand. Spending on power grids alone will rise from $300bn pa to over $1.2trn pa, which is actually larger than the spending on all primary energy production today (data here).

(5) Power transmission also beats batteries as a way of maximizing renewable penetration in future grids. Rather than overcoming intermittency — solar output across Europe is 60-90% inter-correlated, wind output is 50-90% inter-correlated — by moving power across time, you can solve the same challenge by moving them over a wider space. A key advantage is that a large and extensive power grid smooths all forms of renewables volatility, from a typical facility’s 100 x sub-10-second power drops per day to the +/- 6% annual variations in solar insolation reaching a particular point of the globe. By contrast, different batteries tend to be optimized for a specific time-duration, while at long durations, the economics become practically unworkable. A new transmission line usually costs 2-3c/kWh per 1,000km (model here). Additional benefits for expanded power grids accrue in power quality, reliability and resiliency against extreme weather. These benefits will be spelled out further below…

(6) Upside for transmission utilities and suppliers? Our overview of how power transmission works is here. Operating data for high voltage transmission cables are here. Leading US transmission and distribution utilities are screened here. Leading companies in HVDCs are here. Offshore cable lay vessels are screened here. We have also screened Prysmian patents here. But the opportunity space is also much broader, which becomes visible by delving into how power grids work…

(7) Cabling materials. As a general rule, overhead power lines are made of aluminium, due to its light weight and high strength. Conversely, HVDC cables and household wiring are made of copper, which is more conductive. HVDCs are also encased in specialized plastics. New power transmission lines add 3-5MTpa of demand to aluminium markets, or 5-7% upside (note here). But we are more worried about bottlenecks in copper (where total global demand trebles) and silver.

(8) Transformers and specialized switchgear are needed to step the voltage up or down to a precise and prescribed level at every inter-connection point in the grid. The US transmission network operates at a median voltage of 230kV, which keeps losses to around 7%. Energy transition could double the transformer market in capacity terms and increase it by 30x in unit count (note here, costs and companies screened here), surpassing $50bn pa by 2035. Downstream of these transformers, the power entering industrial and commercial facilities will often remain at several kV, which requires specialized switchgear to prevent arcing. We see the MV switchgear market trebling to over $100bn pa by 2035.

(9) AC and DC. Wind and solar inherently produce DC power, but most transmission lines are AC. Hence they must be coupled with inverters and converters. At the ultimate point of use, AC power also usually needs to be rectified back to DC and bucked/boosted to the right voltage for each machine or appliance. The same goes for EV charging and EV drive trains. DC-DC conversion, AC-DC rectification and DC-AC inversion are effectively consolidating around MOSFETs. And we think one of the most interesting incremental jolts for the energy transition is the 1-10pp higher efficiency and rising market share of SiC MOSFETs. Leading companies in SiC and MOSFETs are screened here.

(10) Inertia and frequency regulation. All of the AC power generators in the grid are running in lockstep, ‘synchronized’ at around 50 Hertz in Europe and 60 Hz in the US. But the frequency of all the power generators in the grid changes second by second. If there is a slight under-supply of power, then what prevents the grid from collapsing is that energy can be harvested from the rotational energy of massive turbines weighing up to 4,000 tons and spinning at 1,500 – 6,000 rpm, as they all slow down very slightly. This sorcery is called ‘inertia’. Wind and solar do not inherently have any inertia (no synchronized spinning). But there are ways of partially mimicking inertia or adding synthetic inertia to the grid through flywheels, supercapacitors, synchronous condensers, batteries, smart energy. Our grid models reflect growing demand for infrastructure in all of these categories.

(11) Reactive power compensation. Apparent power (in kVA) consists of two components: real power (in kW) and reactive power (in kVAR). Inductive loads consume reactive power as the creation of magnetic fields draws the current behind the voltage in an AC wave. This lowers power factor in the grid, amplifies the current that must flow per unit of real power, and thus amplifies I2R losses. Large spinning generators have historically provided reactive power to energize transmission lines and compensate for inductive loads. Again, wind and solar do not inherently provide reactive power compensation and have historically leaned on the rotating generators. Renewable heavy grids will need to add reactive power compensation, expanding this market by a factor of 30x. The best opportunities are in STATCOMs and SVCs (leading companies screened here), capacitor banks at industrial facilities and Volt-VAR optimization at the grid edge.

(12) Electric vehicle charging: find the shovel-makers? Each 1,000 EVs will likely require 40 Level 2 chargers (30-40kW) and 3 Level 3 fast-chargers (100-200kW), so our numbers ultimately have $100bn pa being spent on EV charging in 2025-50. But we wonder whether EV chargers will ultimately become over-built, and the best opportunities will be in supplying components and materials to these chargers, rather than owning the infrastructure itself. Our best single note on this topic is here. Economics of EV charging stations and conventional fuel retail stations make a nice comparison.

(13) Motor drivers are another huge efficiency opportunity. There are 50bn electric motors in the world, consuming half of all global electricity. But most motors are inefficient, rotating at fixed speeds determined by the frequency of the AC power grid, rotating faster than they need to, which matters as power consumption is a cube function of rotating speed. One of the best efficiency opportunities in the grid expands the role of variable frequency drives to optimize motors (note here). Economics are screened here and leading companies are covered here. All of our work into electric motor efficiency and reliability is linked here.

(14) Without reliable and high-quality power grids, frankly, things will break. This is a statement made in patents and technical papers, again and again, discussing how lagging power quality enhances maintenance and breakage costs of expensive equipment. Fundamentally, this is why we think that commercial and industrial power consumers will increasingly invest more in power electronics, and there are so many hidden power grid opportunities in the energy transition.

(15) Power electronics is the broad category of capital goods that encompasses effectively everything discussed on this page. And this summary has hardly even scratched the surface. We think pure power electronics spending trebles from $300bn pa to $1trn pa by 2035 (model here). It is the same group of companies coming up again and again in this space (best note here). For example, we have attempted to break down Eaton’s revenues across 10,000 SKUs in 200 different categories here. We do think that the complexity in power grids and power electronics creates opportunity for decision makers that can grasp it.



All of our research — PDF research reports, data-files, economic models and company screens — into power grid opportunities in the energy transition is summarized below, in chronological order of publication.


CO2 intensity of materials: an overview?

This data-file tabulates the energy intensity and CO2 intensity of materials, in tons/ton of CO2, kWh/ton of electricity and kWh/ton of total energy use. The build-ups are based on 160 economic models that we have constructed, and the data-file is intended as a helpful summary reference. Our key conclusions on the CO2 intensity of materials are below.


Human civilization produces over 60 bn tons per year of ‘stuff’ across 40 different material categories, accounting for 40% of all global energy use and 35% of all global emissions.

Rules of thumb. Producing the average material in our data-file consumes 5,000 kWh/ton of primary energy and emits 2 tons/ton of CO2.

Energy breakdowns. As another rule of thumb, 30% of the energy inputs needed to make a typical material are electricity, 25% are heat and 45% are other input materials.

Ranges. All of these numbers can vary enormously (chart below). Energy intensity of producing materials ranges from 300 kWh/ton (bottom decile) to 150,000 kWh/ton (upper decile).

CO2 intensity of producing different materials also ranges from 0.5 tons/ton (bottom decile) to 140 tons/ton (upper decile).

Strictly, many of the largest contributors to global CO2 emissions, such as steel and cement, are not ‘carbon intensive’ (i.e., emissions are <2 tons/ton), they are simply produced in very large volumes.

Ironically, while we want to achieve an energy transition, it does require ramping up production of materials value chains that truly are CO2 intensive (i.e., emissions are above 20 tons/ton or even 100 tons/ton). This includes PV silicon and silver for solar panels; carbon fiber and rare earths for wind turbines; and lithium and SiC MOSFETs for electric vehicles. Ultimately these value chains also need to decarbonize in some non-inflationary way, which is a focus in our research.

Scope 4 CO2. Another complexity is that everything has a counterfactual. SiC MOFSETs might be energy intensive to produce but they earn their keep in long-term efficiency savings. Hence we recommend that the best way to evaluate total CO2 intensity is on a Scope 1-4 basis (note here).

Simplifications. Please note that in order to make this file remotely useful, we are guilty of simplifying and averaging quite complex and broad-ranging industries. More detail is available on different oil value chains (including oil sands and Permian shale in detail), gas value chains, coal grades, industrial boilers and burners by industry, construction materials and different plastics.

CO2 screening. In some industries, we have been able to aggregate CO2 curves, plotting the different CO2 intensities or energy intensities of different companies. The best example is looking at acreage position by position in the US oil and gas industry, refiners, gas pipelines, gas gathering, gas distribution, ethanol plants.

Other data-files on our website have aimed to tabulate the CO2 intensity of other value chains, but due to quirks of those value chains, we cannot plot the data in kWh/ton or CO2/ton. This includes the CO2 of different forms of transportation, digital processes, or hydrogen.

Agricultural commodities are also not captured in the data-file. We have estimated separately the CO2 intensity of different wood fuels, crop production, how it varies with fertilizer application, palm oil. All of our biofuels research is here.

Nature-based CO2 removals: a summary?

Overview of nature-based CO2 removal

This data-file is an overview of nature-based CO2 removal projects that we have been supporting at Thunder Said Energy. Our research ‘scores’ different nature-based projects on a 100-point scale, using criteria to check whether they are real, incremental, measurable, permanent and bio-diverse. The average project supported so far scores 70/100 and sells CO2 offsets at $5-50/ton.


In 2022, we spent $8,000 to support five projects, which have most likely ‘credited’ 480 tons of CO2, for an average cost of $16/ton. Projects span across Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Kenya, Uganda, Indonesia and Madagascar.

The average nature-based reforestation initiative that we supported in 2022 scored 70/100 on our framework for assessing nature-based CO2 removal projects, and was priced at $17/ton of CO2.

Two of the projects scored over 80/100. Whereas three of the projects were given lower scores, due to question marks around whether they were fully incremental, fully measurable, or fully bio-diverse.

Overall we were least concerned about whether the projects were real, as most of them were issuing CO2 offsets that had been certified by Verra or Gold Standard, independently audited and with detailed documentation.

Overall we were most concerned about whether the projects were permanent, in turn a good reason to consider complementary solutions such as CCS and DAC projects?

Statistical distributions are also explored in this data-file, as there are clearly going to be ‘uncertainties’ in natural remediation projects: both implementing the projects over 40-year timeframes and quantifying the CO2 benefits.

The statistical distributions of nature-based CO2 removals are not normally distributed. We estimate our own probability distributions in the data-file. More on CO2 measurement in our allometry research.

A Monte Carlo approach can be used to quantify nature-based CO2 removals across a portfolio. Overall, we are 75% confident that the projects we supported in 2022 have offset over 400 tons of CO2, and 90% confident they have offset over 300 tons of CO2.

You can download this data-file for an overview of nature-based CO2 removal projects we have supported to-date. Or see our nature-based CO2 removals category for full details on the underlying projects.

Global energy: supply-demand model?

global energy supply-demand

This global energy supply-demand model combines our supply outlooks for coal, oil, gas, LNG, wind and solar, nuclear and hydro, into a build-up of useful global energy balances in 2022-30. We fear chronic under-supply. This is masked by economic weakness in 2023, rises to 3% shortages in 2025, and 5% shortages in 2030. Numbers can be stress-tested in the model.


Useful global energy demand grew at a CAGR of +2.5% per year since 1990, and +3.0% per year since 2000. Demand would ‘want’ to grow by +2% per year through 2030, due to rising populations and rising living standards (model here). We have pencilled in +1.75% pa growth to this model to be conservative.

Combustion energy is seen flat-lining. This includes global coal use peaking at 8.4GTpa in 2024 then gently easing to 2010 levels by 2030 (model here). It includes oil demand, rising to 101Mbpd in 2023 (data here), then plateauing (model here) as OPEC and US shale (model here) offset the decline rate impacts of conventional under-investment. It includes risked LNG supplies rising +70% from 400MTpa in 2022 to almost 700MTpa by 2030 (model here). While our roadmap to net zero would need to see global gas growing at +2.5% per year through 2050 (model here), this data-file has pencilled in flat production in 2022->30, as we think that latter scenario currently looks more likely to transpire.

Renewable energy is exploding. Our model of wind and solar capacity additions is linked here and discussed here. In our roadmap to net zero, solar more than doubles from c200GW of new adds in 2022 to 450GW by 2030, while wind doubles from 110GW of new adds in 2022 to 220GW by 2030. But in this model, we have assumed higher growth again, with 2030 supply growth approaching 900GW. We do not want to be accused of under-baking our renewables numbers in this global energy supply-demand model.

Other variables in the model include rising energy efficiency (note here), the need for a nuclear renaissance (note here) and other variables that can be flexed.

What is wrong with this balance is that it does not balance. The assumptions pencilled into the model see an under-supply of global energy of about 3% in 2025, rising to 5% in 2030. I.e., by 2050, the world will be “half a Europe” short of energy. The first law of thermodynamics dictates that energy demand cannot exceed supplies. So what would it take to restore the balance? Well, pick your poison…

(1) Slower demand growth could re-balance the model. Very high energy prices might mute demand growth to only +1.25% per year, although this would be the slowest pace of demand growth since the Great Depression, lower even than during the oil shocks (useful data here). Unfortunately, our view is that pricing people out of the global energy system in this way is in itself an ESG catastrophe.

(2) Ramping renewables faster could re-balance the model, although it would require an average of 1 TW pa of wind and solar capacity additions each year in 2024-30, and over 2 TW pa of wind and solar additions by 2030 itself, which is 3x higher than in our roadmap to net zero (discussion here). For perspective, this +2TWpa solution requires primary energy investment to quadruple from $1trn pa to at least $4trn pa, which all needs to be financed in a world of rising rates. It means that global wind and solar projects will consume over 200MTpa of steel, which is 2x total US steel production, and yet steel would not even qualify as a ‘top ten’ bottleneck, in our wind bill of materials or solar bill of materials. This scenario also requires a 3x faster expansion of power grids and power electronics than our base case estimates (see the links). Is any of this remotely possible?

(3) Continue ramping coal? The main source of global energy demand growth is the emerging world. The emerging world is more likely to favor cheap, dirty coal. Thus another way to ameliorate under-supply in our global energy supply-demand balance is if global coal continues growing, reaching a new peak of 9GTpa in 2030. Unfortunately, this scenario also sees global CO2 hitting a new peak of 54GTpa in 2030.

(4) Pragmatic gas? Another means of re-balancing the global energy system is if global gas production rises at 2.5% per year, which is the number required, and that is possible, on the TSE roadmap to net zero (model here). This scenario does see global CO2 falling by 2030. The main problem here is that pragmatic natural gas investment has become stranded in no man’s land, within a Manichean duality of fantasies and crises.

(5) Some combination? The world is complex. It is unlikely that a single lever will be pulled to resolve under-supply in our global energy supply-demand balance. In 2023, we think economic weakness will mask energy under-supply, mute energy prices, and lure many decision makers into looking at spot pricing and thinking “everything is fine”. Please download the model to stress-test the numbers, and different re-balancing solutions…

Copyright: Thunder Said Energy, 2019-2023.

... or Sign In

Receive our best ideas, as we publish them?

We provide differentiated insights to the leading decision-makers in energy. Our work includes written research, downloadable data and models. The aim is to save you time and help your process. If this sounds useful, then please sign up below...

TERMS & CONDITIONS

This page includes all of Thunder Said Energy’s terms, conditions, its privacy policy, its GDPR policy and other relevant contact details. By accessing our content, you agree to abide by these terms of use. We also have formal policies for Conflicts of Interests, MNPI and employee policies (upon request).

Terms of Use

1. Use of the Thunder Said Energy Website

These conditions are a legal agreement between you and Thunder Said Energy (“we” or “us”). They set out the basis on which you may make use of Thunder Said Energy’s services, accessed through www.thundersaidenergy.com (the “site”), whether as a guest or a subscribing client.

Please read these conditions before you use the Site, as they will apply. You must not use the site if you do not agree to them.

We reserve the right to change these conditions at a later date.

2. Information about Thunder Said Energy

Thunder Said Energy Inc. is a corporation registered in Texas, in January-2021. Previously, Thunder Said Energy LLC operated as a company in Connecticut, United States, effective April-2019.

3. Accuracy of Content

The information on the site (our “content”) is for general information purposes. It is not intended to address your particular requirements.

We have no liability for any loss or damage arising from using our content.

Our content shall not be construed as investment advice on the merits of buying, selling, subscribing to, or underwriting any shares, securities of other financial investments. You do any of the above entirely at your own risk: Thunder Said Energy shall have no liability for any adverse consequences thereof.

We strive for, but do not guarantee, the accuracy of our content. We do not represent that it is error-free, will be corrected or that your use will provide specific results. If you believe anything is inaccurate, please let us know via email, so we may update it as appropriate.

The future is uncertain. There can be no assurance that our opinions, forecasts or estimates will be realized.

You hereby acknowledge that the risk to the accuracy and completeness of our content, and any reliance upon it, is with you.

4. Limitation of Liability

Thunder Said Energy will not be liable for any loss of profits, business, contracts, revenue, goodwill or anticipated savings or other indirect losses

Nothing in these terms seeks to exclude or limit any liability that cannot be excluded or limited by US, UK or European law.

5. Intellectual Property Rights

Our content, including any information, imagery or materials created by us are owned by and are confidential to Thunder Said Energy and are protected by copyright.

Documents and models downloaded from Thunder Said Energy’s website are for the exclusive use of their purchaser.

Any citation of our content, including short passages of text is to be attributed to Thunder Said Energy, plus a link to our website www.thundersaidenergy.com. We would appreciate it if you sought our prior approval for citing our content.

Distributing, reproducing, transmitting or re-selling our content in any medium, whole or in part, is prohibited without prior permission of Thunder Said Energy. We reserve the right to prosecute against illegal copying or sharing of our content.

You may not alter, obscure or remove any trade marks from our content.

6. Links

Other websites and resources are linked on our site with the aim of helping our users.

All are independent from Thunder Said Energy.

Thunder Said Energy does not accept any responsibility for the content or the use of linked websites and resources; or of the content of other sites that link to ours.

Use of any links is made at your own risk. You must take your own precautions to ensure any selected link or download is free from any viruses or other unpleasantness.

You must not link to our website from any site that is indecent, inappropriate or unlawful.

7. Accessing Our Content

You may be provided with a username and password to access our content. You are responsible for keeping them confidential

You may not share the username and password with, or transfer them to any third party.

You must notify Thunder Said Energy immediately if you become aware of any unauthorised use of your user name and password, or any other breach of security.

If your access to our content occurs through a corporate account, your rights to access our content may cease if your employment terminates at that company, which will be at the discretion of Thunder Said Energy.

You and your company are responsible for notifying Thunder Said Energy of any termination of employment, and any unauthorised use of our content after your employment ceases.

8. Payments and Wallet

All payment details entered into Thunder Said Energy’s website are controlled by third parties, such as Stripe. At no time does Thunder Said Energy see or store your payment details.

In order to facilitate purchasing our content, Thunder Said Energy maintains a ‘wallet’ system for its customers and clients. Clients can add credit into their wallet, which is later redeemable for content on our site. Discounts may also be offered for customers who buy using the wallet function.

There is no guarantee of being able to use the full balance in your wallet. The value in the wallet does not have any monetary value outside of Thunder Said Energy’s website. It is not transferable or subject to interest or refundable. It is not refundable, except at Thunder Said energy’s discretion.

9. Viruses

Thunder Said Energy does not guarantee that its site will be secure or free from bugs or viruses. You are responsible for configuring your own virus protection software.

You must not misuse the site by knowingly seeking to introduce viruses, trojans, worms, logic bombs or other material which is malicious or technologically harmful.

You must not attempt to gain unauthorised access to the Site, its server, or any computer or database connected to the Site.

In the event of breaching these conditions, Thunder Said Energy will cooperate with relevant law enforcement authorities, may disclose your identity to them, and your right to use the site will cease.

10. Privacy and Cookies

Thunder Said Energy’s policy on data protection, privacy and cookies is set out in our privacy notice and cookie policy. You are encouraged to read both of these.

11. Governing Law and Jurisdiction

These terms of use and their formation are governed primarily by US. UK and European laws may also apply, based upon your location.

Thunder Said Energy may pursue injunctive relief or similar to enforce the provisions of these terms of use in any appropriate forum.

12. General

Any formal legal notices to Thunder Said Energy must be sent to compliance@thundersaidenergy.com

Failure by Thunder Said Energy to enforce a right does not result in a waiver of such right.

If any provision in these terms of use is deemed invalid or unenforceable, the rest of these terms will remain in full force and effect.

These terms of use, privacy notice and cookie policy, constitute the entire agreement between you and Thunder Said Energy relating to your use of the Site, and supersede all other or previous agreements.

Thunder Said Energy may amend these terms at any time by posting such changes on this page of the site.

13. Further Information

Further information on these terms or any queries may be made by contacting Thunder Said Energy via the postal address, email address or phone numbers below.

Privacy Policy

Thunder Said Energy (“we”, “us”) respects your preferences on the collection and use of your personal information. The following statements explain our policies.

We are committed to protecting your privacy, while using our websites, products and services (our “platform”).

You should review this Privacy Policy periodically to keep up to date on our most current policies; as we reserve the right, at any time, to modify this Privacy Policy.

Any changes will be posted in this Privacy Policy. Any material changes may also be notified, e.g., via email.

1. Scope

This Policy applies to our platform. It provides you with guidance on your rights and obligations pertaining to your personal information.

2. Collection of Personal Information

Our general philosophy and ambition is to safeguard your personal data by minimising what we collect, and storing what we do collect in a secure manner.

Thunder Said Energy is the data controller for personal data we collect through our platform.

Thunder Said Energy will collect personal information that is necessary for our business: to improve the usability of our platform and help us tailor content for you.

Specifically, when you register with Thunder Said Energy, we will collect your name, email address, location, subscription preferences and preferred method of contact.

We may collect additional information, including what content you have accessed from our website and our email distribution list.

Collecting personal information will be self-apparent or will be disclosed to you at the time of collection: most often, when you enter it into an online submission form, when you request a trial or when you subscribe to our platform.

Thunder Said Energy will use this information for the purposes for which it was collected.

Thunder Said Energy does not share any personal data with any third parties.

Our platform uses several ‘plug ins’ and ‘cookies’ which are described in more detail below, including Google Analytics.

3. Purpose of Personal Information

We may use your personal information for operational, legal, administrative, and other legitimate purposes permitted by applicable laws. This may include:

Providing you with requested emails, products and services.
Providing you with information regarding our company.
Monitoring your use of our platform.
Providing customized information to you.
Confirming or invoicing purchases of our products.
For information verification purposes.
4. Access Rights and Ensuring Accuracy

We endeavour to ensure personal information is reliable, accurate, and up-to-date.

You may access your personal information, to update, and correct inaccuracies by email request (as long as your account is active).

You may limit the use and disclosure of your information by unsubscribing from marketing communications or contacting us at compliance@thundersaidenergy.com.

Some information may remain in our records even after you request deletion of your information, for example, if required by relevant legal authorities.

There may be limits to the amount of information we can practically provide about personal information that we store, due to cost, or others’ privacy rights.

5. Sharing Personal Information

We do not expect to work with any service providers that will handle our clients’ personal data. If we did work with any such service providers in the future, we would require them to treat personal information as confidential, and not for their own marketing purposes.

Our email distribution is handled by a third-party marketing platform, one of the largest and most secure providers in the industry. As a subscriber to our content, your email address may be associated with our subscription to this platform. It is not shared with any other users of the platform. It is secured using strong passwords and two-factor authentification.

There could be instances when we disclose your personal information without providing you with a choice, in order to comply with the law or in response to a court order, government request, or other legal process; to protect the interests, rights or safety of Thunder Said Energy or others; or respond to adverse third parties in the context of litigation. But we consider this unlikely.

Should Thunder Said Energy establish future subsidiaries or affiliate companies in the future, controlled by the management of Thunder Said Energy, then we may disclose personal information “internally” to these subsidiaries or affiliate companies.

Generally, we will not transfer personal data to third parties of affiliates where Thunder Said Energy’s management team does not control it.

If Thunder Said Energy sells all or part of its business, or is involved in a merger, you agree that we may transfer your personal information as part of that transaction.

If you provide comments on Thunder Said Energy on a social media or other public platform, you should be aware that the information provided there will be broadly available to others to see, and could be used to contact you. We are not responsible for any information you choose to submit on these forums or their consequences.

6. Security of Personal Information

We take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure the security of your personal information. Physical, administrative, and technical safeguards are in place to help protect personal information.

7. Retention of Personal Information

We will retain your personal information as needed to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected, and to comply with our business requirements.

Typically, we will retain your name and contact details for the duration of our relationship with you, as a client or prospective client of Thunder Said Energy. Any data collected for analytics purposes is retained for a shorter time, while we are carrying out the relevant analytics.

8. Cookies

A cookie is a text file, created when your browser visits a particular website. Every time you visit our website, your browser queries for and retrieves any cookies that have previously been set. Cookies should enhance the user’s website experience, including authentication, storing your preference and personalizing the website’s appearance.

The cookies Thunder Said Energy collects may include the following: a unique identifier, user preferences, and profile information used to personalize the content shown.

For example, if you are a subscription client of Thunder Said Energy’s research, then your browser may store a cookie so that you can download our research reports and/or data-files with “one click”.

As far as Thunder Said Energy is aware, all cookies used on its website are industry-standard, such as those used by Google Analytics, Stripe, Easy Digital Downloads; and we have not knowingly added any specific cookies of our own.

We may collect the physical location of your device, with your consent, for purposes consistent with this Privacy Policy.

Some web browsers permit you to broadcast a preference that you not be “tracked” online. We do not actively modify your experience based upon such a signal.

We do not participate in interest based advertising. There is no third-party advertising on our website. And we will never target you with particular marketing campaigns based on information collected via cookies.



9. Cross Border Transfer of Personal Information

Thunder Said Energy aims to minimise the the cross-border transfer of personal information. However, our company is based in the United States of America (USA), with employees based in Europe and the United Kingdom. If you enter personal information into our website, then you agree for the information to be transferred to servers in the USA and seen by employees in Europea and the United Kingdom..

By using our website, or providing any personal information to us, you consent to the transfer, processing, and storage or such information outside of your country of residence.

10. Prospective Employees and Employee Information

If you submit an application for employment to Thunder Said Energy, we may collect and store any relevant information you disclose to us in your application.

Information on employees or prospective employees (“Employee Information”) will be used for legitimate business purposes, to evaluate applications, manage the employee-employer relationship and comply with applicable laws and regulations.

We may disclose your Employee Information if required or permitted to do so by law (such as when part of a governmental agency action or litigation), governmental or quasi-governmental requests, or a regulatory organization, or to relevant third parties such as site technicians, auditors, lawyers, or professional advisors.

We will not intentionally communicate or make available to the general public in any manner, employees’ sensitive details, such as social security numbers.

We may share Employee Information with third parties who provide outsourced human resource functions. Those third parties will be required to protect Employee Information.

11. EU General Data Protection Regulation

The Thunder Said Energy Policy for the Processing of Data Governed by GDPR addresses our commitment to the processing of personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679.

If you are located in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) or Switzerland, you have the rights to request the following:

To request confirmation of whether we process personal data relating to you
To request confirmation of what personal data we process relating to you
To request that we rectify or update any personal data relating to you that is inaccurate, incomplete or outdated.
To request that we erase your personal data ,or that we no longer have your consent to process your personal data
To request that we restrict the use of your personal data
You may contact us at GPDR@thundersaidenergy.com to exercise any of these rights described above. You also have the right to lodge a complaint with your country’s data protection supervisory authority.

12. Other Contractual Relationships

If you enter into a separate contractual relationship us, which requires collecting, using, or sharing information about you in a different manner than described in this Privacy Policy, the terms of that agreement will apply.

13. Other Websites

This Privacy Policy does not apply to sites or services offered by other companies or third parties, that may be displayed as content or linked on our website.

14. Contact Information

If you have any questions or concerns related to this Privacy Policy, please contact the us at compliance@thundersaidenergy.com

Updated 24th January 2020.

Thunder Said Energy Policy for the Processing of Data Governed by GDPR

Thunder Said Energy may collect, process or handle Personal Data relating to its customers or prospective customers (“customers”) in the European Economic Area (“Personal Data”).

Thunder Said Energy’s relationship with its customers is governed by our terms of use (above), privacy policy (above), and potentially other commercial agreements. It is also legally bound under the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“GDPR”) in its collection, uses, and processes around Personal Data.

This Policy describes Thunder Said Energy’s commitment to the processing of Personal Data under the GDPR.

Please contact GPDR@thundersaidenergy.com if you would like an executed version of this Policy, or for answers to any GDPR queries arising from thie policy.

1. Appropriate Technical and Organizational Measures. When Thunder Said Energy processes Personal Data on behalf of a customer, appropriate technical and organizational measures satisfy the requirements of GDPR, to ensure the security of Personal Data is appropriate to the level of risk, and to help ensure protection of the rights of the data subject.

2. Subprocessing. Thunder Said Energy does not currently work with any subprocessors. If we were to do so in the future, subprocessors would be required to provide at least the same level of protection as is described in this Policy. Thunder Said Energy would remain liable to its customers for any actions by its subprocessors that impact any rights guaranteed under the GDPR.

3. Written Instructions. Thunder Said Energy only processes Personal Data in accordance with the terms set out in this Policy, its Privacy Policy (above) and other written terms agreed with its subscribing customer. These documents set out the subject-matter, duration, nature, purpose, types of Personal Data, categories, obligations and rights relating to such Personal Data.

4. Transfers to non-EEA Countries. Most of the Personal Data collected by Thunder Said Energy will be collected via its US-website. Where Personal Data are disclosd Thunder Said employees in the EEA, they may be transferred to Thunder Said Energy’s offices and employees. Every effort will be made to ensure the transfer is fully secure. Personal data is not expected to be transmitted to other destinations, beyond the United States, UK and EEA.

5. Confidentiality. Thunder Said Energy requires that its employees process Personal Data under appropriate obligations of confidentiality.

6. Cooperation Concerning Data Subjects. Thunder Said Energy cooperates with reasonable requests of its customers (at the customer’s reasonable expense) to help them fulfill their obligations under GDPR to respond to requests by data subjects to access, modify, rectify, or remove their Personal Data.

7. Cooperation Concerning Customer Documentation. Thunder Said Energy cooperates with the reasonable requests of its customers to provide information necessary to demonstrate compliance with this Policy and the GDPR, or to conduct audits of the Personal Data it holds that was received from the customer. Audits may only occur once per calendar year, and during normal business hours. Audits will only occur after reasonable notice (not less than 30 business days). Audits will be conducted by customer or an appropriate independent auditor appointed (not by a competitor). Audits may not have any adverse impact on Thunder Said Energy’s normal business operations. Auditors shall not have access to any proprietary or third party information or data. Any records, data or information accessed by the Company and/or its representatives in the performance of any such audit will be deemed to be the confidential information of Thunder Said Energy, as applicable, and may be used for no other reason than to assess compliance with the terms of this Policy. Thunder Said Energy shall be entitled to charge the Customer USD500 per hour for any hours of its employees’ time that is taken up in the audit.

8. Personal Data Breach. In the event of a Personal Data breach under GDPR, Thunder Said Energy will notify its applicable customers without undue delay after becoming aware of the breach. Such notification(s) may be delivered to an email address provided by Customer or by direct communication (for example, by phone call or in-person). The customer is responsible for ensuring any email address provided by them is current and valid. Thunder Said Energy will take reasonable steps to provide information reasonably required.

9. Deletion of Data. Thunder Said Energy will delete or return all Personal Data to a customer, following the termination of the customer’s relationship, unless it is required to retain it by applicable laws and compliance policies. Thunder Said Energy reserves the right to charge a reasonable fee to comply with any customer’s request to return Personal Data.

10. Governing Law. This Policy shall be governed by the governing law (and subject to the jurisdiction(s)) of the relevant Agreement and otherwise subject to the limitations and remedies expressly set out in the Agreement.
If you have any queries about this Policy please contact gdpr@thundersaidenergy.com.
=