Why biogas specifically? This should work fine with regular fossil methane, and it will de-risk your deployments. There are plenty of places in Texas that uselessly flare the natural gas instead of doing anything with it.

▲

jonavanoord an hour ago | parent [-]

We do it with biogas specifically because it enables us to produce chemicals with a 90% lower carbon footprint. Our thesis has always been that when you combine cheap waste feedstocks and an efficent enough process, you could produce green chemicals that are cost competitive with the fossil alternative. Biogas is the ideal waste feedstock because it gives us a low CI, is produced 24/7 and is quite consistent in its composition. We also get it for relatively cheap.

Our process is also more efficient with CO2 so we actually like the CO2 being present.

	▲	cyberax 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think the first priority for you should be getting _something_ built and proving your core technology. But you are making it harder for yourself by adding more variables. Natural gas is abundant in some areas and is wasted. If you can prove that you can build cost-efficient small-scale synthesis units, then moving to biogas should later be a no-brainer. I'm also pretty sure that you need to pre-treat the gas to remove stuff like sulfur or ammonia from it. And you can get that for "free" in places that distill the LPG from the well gas. From a "cynical investor" point of view, it looks like you're knee-capping yourself by going for a vastly smaller market. To me this is a huge red flag, usually pointing to companies that either do green-washing, or already plan to pivot once they get the initial investment.