The European hydrogen industry has faced many challenges in recent years, grappling with high production costs, intensifying global competition, subdued demand growth, and increasingly stringent environmental and regulatory requirements.

As the global push toward decarbonization accelerates, green hydrogen continues to be considered one of the most promising candidates for the transition to a clean energy future. At the vanguard of this movement is InterContinental Energy, a company that’s been quietly building some of the largest green hydrogen mega-projects on Earth—from the arid deserts of Australia to the coastal plains of Oman.

During the World Hydrogen Summit 2025, OPIS editor Matias Poirrier sat down with Intercontinental Energy’s CEO, Alexander Tancock. Alex has not only led the company through its conception but also remains a global leader in large-scale green hydrogen development projects. As such, he has built his reputation as a key industry figure over the last ten years.

He explained how he sees the company’s long-term vision, technological innovations, and strategic approach to building the next generation of energy infrastructure, as well as his take on the industry’s future developments amidst the uncertainties in geopolitical terms.

OPIS: InterContinental Energy is behind some of the world’s largest green hydrogen projects. What’s the long-term vision driving your strategy?

Tancock: Scale. It’s not just a business consideration—it’s a necessity. The transition to green hydrogen isn’t a small, incremental shift; it’s a wholesale transformation of how energy is produced and consumed globally. To meaningfully displace fossil fuels, hydrogen production must reach gigawatt-scale—20 GW or more. Anything less simply won’t be enough for the energy-hungry nations of the future.

We envision entire countries relying on green hydrogen as a foundational energy source. So, our focus is on creating projects large enough to shift national energy profiles, not just supplement them. Scalability translates to real offtake, lower prices and long-term vision for meaningful hydrogen adoption.

OPIS: How do you decide where to invest and build? What makes a location attractive for a hydrogen mega-hub?

Tancock: It comes down to a global matrix of factors, with renewable resource potential at the top. Strong, consistent wind and solar are critical. But that’s not enough—jurisdictional stability, supportive policy environments, and access to land are just as important.

Let’s take our projects in Oman and Australia as prime examples. We know through research that these regions offer unparalleled solar and wind synergies. But it’s not just that, we are confident in the track records we observe when we look at how stable their governments are and how clear the policy signals are in the jurisdictions we look to operate. This is something that we struggle to see in other parts of the world, and as such, we see a clear contrast with Europe.

Because although the ambition for hydrogen projects is there, the land just isn’t. You simply can’t build the required scale in a country like Belgium—it’s not physically feasible. Even if you could, the complexity of breaking projects into fragmented “nodes” would render them inefficient and expensive.

OPIS: Let’s focus on your homebase of Australia. What have been the biggest technical or regulatory challenges in launching and scaling a project like the Western Green Energy Hub over there?

Tancock: One of the biggest hurdles is aligning future demand with current investment. Regulations like Australia’s Renewable Market Obligation (RMO) can help by creating predictable demand for e-fuels and hydrogen, but we’re still waiting for the off takers—major industrial buyers—to emerge at scale.

We do, however, expect serious demand to materialize by the early 2030s. That’s also where we are placing all our ambitions, and our projects to start production. In the meantime, we’re seeing strong interest from global investment funds. They understand the long-term trajectory and are positioning early.

OPIS: How do you manage the risks of working at such massive scale—permitting, technology, financing, geopolitical?

Tancock: We take a structured, layered approach. Permitting, for example, tends to be a localized and slow process—so we start early and involve community stakeholders from day one. Technology risk is mitigated through partnerships with top-tier suppliers and our own platform innovations. Financing is always a challenge at this scale, but long-term offtake agreements and policy clarity help unlock capital.

Geopolitical risk is more complex. We diversify geographically and maintain close relationships with local and national governments to minimize surprises.

OPIS: In that line, could you say you’ve had to adapt your approach in response to community engagement or environmental concerns?

Tancock: Absolutely. Community engagement isn’t just a box to check—it’s central to project success. In some locations, we’ve had to revise layouts to avoid sensitive ecosystems or culturally significant sites. In others, we’ve integrated local employment programs or partnered with Indigenous groups to ensure the project benefits everyone.

We also face competition—not just from other hydrogen projects, but from conventional energy. That’s also why we’ve chosen to focus on off-grid solutions. The grid, as it stands, cannot handle the scale we’re aiming for. Producing green hydrogen at scale demands energy independence.

OPIS: Your P2(H2)Node platform is being touted as a breakthrough. How is it fundamentally different from traditional hydrogen infrastructures or just the competition in general?

Tancock: Traditional hydrogen infrastructure is scale inefficient. When you look at the size and planning behind them, they aren’t really thought of to be made larger in the long term. That’s why the bigger they get, the more costly and complex the projects become—especially when transporting energy over long distances.

Our P2(H2)Node architecture fundamentally changes that. What makes it stand out is the fact that we bring production closer to the source, drastically reducing transmission losses and capital costs. It’s about smarter design: compact, modular systems that scale without spiralling costs. The architecture itself is where the real innovation lies.

OPIS: You’ve claimed that the P2(H2) Node platform can cut production costs by up to 20% compared to traditional H2 production methods. What drives those savings?

Tancock: Several levers. First, we remove unnecessary capital expenditure by eliminating long-distance transmission infrastructure. Second, we optimize operational efficiency by co-locating wind, solar, electrolysis, and storage in a single integrated node. And third, we design the platform for longevity. By investing in scalable, durable systems, we reduce lifecycle costs and position our products for long-term viability. The platform is about producing molecules as cheaply as possible.

OPIS: Is the Node model replicable in other geographies outside Australia?

Tancock: To a degree yes. The concept is sound, but the real-world application depends heavily on local conditions, particularly, as I mentioned before, on how scalable it can be. Australia’s combination of land availability, wind and solar synergy, and permitting framework is rare, and that’s why it makes it an ideal spot for us. Some aspects of the Node model can be transferred, but not all.

OPIS: Let’s focus now on off-takers. To your understanding, which industries are showing the most readiness to adopt green hydrogen. Is it steel, ammonia, shipping, aviation?

Tancock: Steel is leading the charge, especially in regions like Northern Australia, where iron ore is abundant. Green iron is a hot topic—not just for export, but for local use in downstream value chains.

I think shipping and aviation are also promising, but they face technical and regulatory hurdles. Ammonia is widely discussed as a hydrogen carrier, but it’s not a universal solution.

OPIS: What needs to happen for these sectors to adopt hydrogen at scale?

Tancock: Price, plain and simple. As production scales, costs will drop. We’re already seeing technology costs decline rapidly. Once green hydrogen falls below $2/kilogram, mass adoption becomes realistic. At that point, the economics will drive adoption—not just policy mandates or subsidies.

OPIS: Let’s look at what’s happening in the world in terms of the recent government shifts. What’s your view on green hydrogen development in the U.S., especially considering the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)?

Tancock: I can’t say too much about North American legislation. However, the U.S. has made a big statement with the IRA, which is worth noting, but we have yet to see this translate into large-scale, shovel-ready projects. The regulatory environment is still maturing.

OPIS: Regarding Europe, we could say that the EU has had an aggressive stance in setting hydrogen targets. Would you agree that the targets were a bit too unrealistic?

Tancock: Europe got ahead of itself. I think there was, for sure, a lot of excitement when they were announced years ago, but we’re entering a phase of realism now. Only the most viable projects—those that truly make economic and logistical sense—will survive and scale.

OPIS: What about Asia’s role, especially Japan, South Korea and China?

Tancock: Asia is truly fascinating. China is moving at a very fast pace—it’s a refreshing market in that there’s a “can-do” attitude. This level of enthusiasm is very much appreciated in an industry that is still striving to find its place in the grand scheme of energy supply.

Japan and Korea are more cautious, on the other hand. They’ve created detailed roadmaps, but they won’t throw subsidies at uneconomical projects. They’re waiting for price parity and global competition to validate investment decisions.

OPIS: Do you foresee a global green hydrogen market developing, in a similar way to how Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) did?

Tancock: Yes, but not immediately. We’ll see regional hubs and bilateral corridors first—Oman-Netherlands, Australia-Japan, etc. Over time, these corridors will connect into a global market, but that’s a 10-to 20-year journey. History repeats itself, and you can see the same developments happen for other energy sources in the past.

OPIS: Looking more into the infrastructure needed for hydrogen projects. What infrastructure investments are most critical in your opinion—ports, pipelines, shipping?

Tancock: All of them! But keep in mind that hydrogen, unlike LNG, still favors on-site production and use. In heavy industries like steel, three-quarters of energy is consumed on-site. Only the final value-added processes get centralized. So yes, ports and pipelines are essential—but only where they align with industrial hubs.

OPIS: Do you expect ammonia to remain the dominant hydrogen carrier?

Tancock: Ammonia is useful, but not a panacea. It’s still expensive, and it has limitations such as price and safety. I always like to point out the hydrogen ladder as a tool to identify hydrogen adoption likelihood by sector. As Michael Liebreich describes it, hydrogen will only make sense in sectors where it outcompetes alternatives. And to this moment, not every sector fits that bill.

OPIS: You’ve mentioned how important it is to have good legislation that favours hydrogen investments. If you had the chance to give recommendations, what kind of policies or regulatory support do you find is most needed now?

Tancock: Certainty and clarity. Legislation needs to be consistent over time, otherwise project developers face unrealistic risk whenever policy changes.

We also need governments to double down on import corridors—like Oman to the Netherlands—and support infrastructure development along those routes. More broadly, we need alignment between hubs (where hydrogen is produced) and corridors (where it’s used). That synergy will unlock real progress.

OPIS: Beyond decarbonization, what role does hydrogen play in energy security and resilience?

Tancock: It’s a piece of the puzzle—I wouldn’t say it’s the silver bullet as many have put it out there. Hydrogen won’t solve everything, but it provides crucial flexibility. It stores energy, fuels industry, and helps buffer against supply shocks. That’s especially important in a world of growing geopolitical volatility.

OPIS: You were a prominent speaker at this year’s hydrogen conference and InterContinental Energy was a sponsor. What were your expectations for the event?

Tancock: More than anything, we looked forward to it being about building trust and aligning perspectives. We’re all here because we believe in hydrogen’s potential—but belief must be tempered with realism. We see this conference as a forum for meaningful dialogue, where the industry can move past hype and focus on what’s real, replicable, and ready.

Our key takeaway from Day One? Everyone is on the same journey. Now it’s about walking the talk—together.

OPIS: Sounds like a challenge.

Tancock: It is, but we remain a trusted partner in hydrogen.