I'd like to respond to your posts, if I may.So that you know...

I'd like to respond to your posts, if I may.

So that you know where I am coming from,

I have a strong leaning towards protecting the environment, but I have a pragmatic approach to environmental sustainability.

I believe that natural gas is vital part of moving to renewables.

What I don't support is gas producers unnecessarily attempting to value add by producing products using natural gas as a feedstock. e.g. plastics, fertliser, ammonia, hydrogen and the like, or using it to produce gas fired power.

This is why I would like to see STX, remain a gas producing company and go straight to renewables. They have a cash cow in Walyering, temporarily stop further exploration (cash burn) and move to renewables. Cut out one element of the move to renewables.

Gas can be converted to ammonia, ammonia can be converted to hydrogen

Yes, it can.

The problem is that methane (CH4) is rich in carbon.

One tonne of methane is equivalent to 2.75 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

For every tonne of methane used to make ammonia (NH3) or hydrogen (H2), 2.75 tonnes of carbon dioxide is liberated and has the potential to enter the atmosphere.

In the manufacture of Ammonia and hydrogen, all carbon dioxide will find its way into the atmosphere if not captured and sequestered.

CCS is the only way, and this process is still in its infancy and is frowned upon be environmentalists and the green hydrogen proponents. If it is not a success all hell will break loose. A yet it is not a perfect process and other carbon mitigation will be needed ie carbon credits and the like to support it.

Urea is not quite as bad locally; it absorbs up to about 20% of the carbon (equivalent to 0.733 tonnes CO2/tonne urea) and passes it on to the poor farmer where the real damage is done.

STX don't have enough free gas to do any of that hence Haber has fallen of the agenda

That sounds reasonable. STX would need $3 billion plus to build the plant and at least 30 years supply of gas to run it. Time is its enemy, the world (big fertiliser companies) is moving rapidly to synthetic fertilisers. Granulated urea is losing popularity.

But, if CCS becomes the huge success that some expect, it will be a whole new ball game. However, I am skeptical, I don't think it will become a universally acceptable form on carbon mitigation. Too much opposition and time is running out.

Think about the impact of Scope 1, 2, 3 & 4 emissions on STX. Particularly 3 and 4.

Gas is available now. That's an advantage. But I would expect a windfarm, or the like could be completed before Walyering is exhausted. Gas usage will eventually have to be severely reduced. Its life is finite.

I've rambled on a bit, but that's how I see it. m IMO. J L.