Ann: Technology Investment & Hydrogen Certification Responses, page-22

Hi, MarketingMan, Thank you for your comment. I hear what you say but I do not understand. You have not given me enough information to analyse. You have been given three ticks so you and others are obviously on the same page. Let me explain the way I see the need for CCS.

In the Announcement of 24 June 2020, LCK stated:
" LCK reinforced the view that a molecule of hydrogen from fossil fuel with CCUS should be treated the same as a hydrogen molecule from renewable energy. Both should be designated as ‘clean hydrogen’ as its carbon footprint is almost as low as the production of hydrogen from 100% renewables. (See Table 1 overleaf), and as such should both be eligible for funding from the Government’s Advancing Hydrogen Fund." Good! no argument with that. It ticks all the boxes. NOTE, it said "with CCUS." And CCUS includes CCS.

Now if we move onto a later statement:

"Phil Staveley Managing Director LCK said: "Our aim for carbon neutrality by 2030 aligns well with the Government’s roadmap for low emissions technologies, both as a major urea producer or through our hydrogen optionality with global demand for hydrogen increasing rapidly. This optionality gives LCK a great opportunity to participate in the need for hydrogen growth of 5-6% per annum for the next 30 years (see Table 2 below)." " I have taken the liberty of changing "or" to "and" for greater clarity.

There seems to be an assumption by the board that Urea is going to take care of the some of carbon content of our gas. Urea is carbon heavy (CO(NH2)2), and as urea, the carbon is nicely locked up. Reality strikes when the farmer applies it to the soil. It gives back all the carbon as CO2. The Ammonia Industry has written a detailed paper explaining the CO2 liberating process in the field. They state "No CO2 is permanently stored or sequestered through the production of urea." So I would suggest that urea is not a contributor to carbon neutrality.

All we have left is CCS and hydrogen optionality. This is where I am stuck. I cannot sea how we can get H2 out of the ground without with bringing the carbon rich gases with it. I cannot see how this optionality is carbon reducing. This leaves us with CCS. And as I said previously how good are we at CCS and at what cost. Please comment. J L.