the aim of MEO is to utilise the 'waste' gas. As there will be a cost associated with disposing it, it makes the economics of conversion more attractive when also offsetting the location risk and reduced cost of pipeline installation (sorry to ESGers, not cross threading delibarately).
The quantity reflects more effort in separating the gases and larger volumes to 'dispose' of.
Conoco already have significant experience in unconventional gas - the pretty much run the San Juan basin over here.
I think Gorgon is in the 40-50% CO2 range (dont quote me either) :)
With respect to the graph on page 5 - intensity is as simple as this:
For every 1 tonne of LNG you produce, you produce X tonnes of CO2 equivalent gases.
In CSGs case I think it was 0.7-0.9 and the others were down around 0.4?
What the 'equivalence' in CO2 gases relates to is the equivalency of the 'thermal effects' (radiative forcing) of CO2 compared to other gases. For example, methane, while heavier and smaller than CO2, has a radiative forcing effect of something like 35 times CO2. So if you emmitted 3% methane and 97% CO2, the eCO2 gases emitted are actually ~50% methane and 50% [3*35=105 (CH4) and 97*1=97 (Co2) total basis is 105+97=202; 105/202 = 51%(Ch4) and 97/202=49%(CO2)]. So essentially they use an equivalency because the gases have different effects and need to be baselined for measurement.
Which page in the QCLNG doc did you want me to look at sorry?
I always like to look at the macro picture when investing. What was the world population in 1980...and what will it be in 2030. I love the comment I read recently that hacked Aussie investors for being so damn short term against the Asian investors that ask questions like so how many years after the inital 30 will we be able to extend the mine life...or something along those lines.
ESG has one of those kind of resources. Droolworthy.
SF
ESG Price at posting:
90.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
