Thanks for your comment. Maybe I am an idiot as suggested but I...

Thanks for your comment. Maybe I am an idiot as suggested but I have to live with it, and I do take critical comments on my posts seriously. So, thanks.

Your leader is technically correct. No argument there.

His statement from the submission.

Strike Energy Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Stuart Nicholls explained the flow-on effect:

Thirty-five per cent of the total capital that we spend is about bringing that two per cent of CO2 out of the gas stream and bringing that down to four per cent. If we operated under the national specification, our reservoir gas would be compliant. We would be able to spend less money on infrastructure. We would be producing less greenhouse gas emissions at the site of the location, which would make environmental approvals of the sources of new gas supply faster, and we would need to invest less capital, therefore a lower return would be required and lower prices ultimately—an acceptable outcome when you are spending less money at the end of the day.

I think that you have summed up your argument in your last three paragraphs.

This means that unless you use CCS at the plant to remove the 3 molecules of CO2, you have achieved at great expense, as Stu has pointed out, absolutely NOTHING.

If you use CCS where the methane is burned you get rid of all of the CO2 so once again you have achieved absolutely nothing.

If you use CCS where the methane is burned but not at the processing plant, you are going backwards.

There is no environmental advantage in his argument. It would, however, require a very detailed analysis as to any economic benefits there might be.

My beef is the above highlighted part of the statement in the submission.

Technically correct it might be, but he has proffered an idiotic and fallacious environmental argument to support his proposal.

If he wants parity with the east coast, good. But this statement is lacking adequate thought. He is involving the environmental area of government where they might not have gone. This type of argument won't be lost on the environmental lobby. IMO. J L.