Natural gas is usually discussed through the language of power plants, LNG cargoes and geopolitics.
That is too narrow.
For executives and policymakers, gas now sits at the centre of a larger system: energy security, fertiliser production, food prices, industrial competitiveness and clean-energy transition strategy. The connection is direct. Natural gas is used to produce hydrogen, hydrogen is combined with nitrogen through the Haber-Bosch process to make ammonia, and ammonia is the starting point for mineral nitrogen fertilisers that support modern food production. The IEA describes ammonia as the bridge between atmospheric nitrogen and “the food we eat.”
That is why a gas shock can become a food shock.
When natural gas prices rise sharply, fertiliser plants can become uneconomic. During the recent energy crisis, FAO, the World Bank, IMF, WFP and WTO warned that tight gas supplies and high prices had caused some urea and ammonia producers to stop operations, increasing risks to food security. The World Bank has also noted that natural gas can account for 70–80% of ammonia production costs, making fertiliser highly exposed to energy prices.
This is the strategic issue: gas policy is also food policy.
The gas-to-food chain
The chain is simple, but its consequences are enormous:
Natural gas → hydrogen → ammonia → urea and nitrogen fertiliser → crop yields → food security.
Gas provides both feedstock and process energy for much of the world’s nitrogen fertiliser production. The IEA estimates ammonia production consumes about 2% of total final energy use, with almost all of that energy coming from fossil fuels.
This makes fertiliser one of the most important but least understood links between the energy system and the food system.
If gas is affordable and reliable, fertiliser production is more secure. If gas becomes scarce or expensive, fertiliser supply can tighten, prices can rise and farmers may reduce application rates. That can affect yields, especially in regions where farmers already operate with thin margins.
For developed economies, this becomes an inflation and supply-chain issue.
For developing economies, it can become a food-security issue.
Why Qatar, Iran and Thailand matter
The strategic map is not only about who owns gas. It is about who can turn gas into reliable energy, fertiliser inputs and industrial resilience.
Qatar is important because it combines resource scale with world-class LNG execution. Its North Field West project will add about 16 million tonnes per annum of LNG capacity and is part of a wider expansion expected to raise Qatar’s LNG export capacity to 142 MTPA. This matters beyond electricity markets. Reliable LNG supply can support countries exposed to gas shortages, including economies where gas is tied to fertiliser, industrial heat and power security.
Iran shows a different story. Its Pazan field discovery adds a reported 10 trillion cubic feet of gas resources, with around 7 Tcf potentially recoverable if a 70% recovery rate is achieved. But Iran’s own timeline points to the harder reality: new reserves do not immediately become available supply. Development, processing, compression, pipelines, capital and market access all sit between discovery and production.
Thailand matters as a demand and regional coordination hub. It is not another Qatar, but it sits in a region where energy demand, LNG imports, industrial growth and food-system resilience intersect. Hosting Gastech 2026 in Bangkok gives Thailand a platform to convene producers, technology companies, policymakers, utilities, fertiliser players, shipping groups and investors around the future of gas, LNG, hydrogen and clean-energy infrastructure.
The opportunity is to use that platform to connect sectors that are too often treated separately.
Clean gas technology is becoming food-security technology
The future of gas will not be defended by calling it clean. It will be defended by making it measurably cleaner, more efficient and more useful to essential systems such as food production.
Several technologies now matter directly.
Methane detection is becoming a credibility test. Satellite systems and platforms such as UNEP’s Methane Alert and Response System are turning large methane leaks into observable, reportable events. For gas producers, methane performance will increasingly affect market access, buyer confidence and the credibility of gas as a transition fuel.
Carbon capture matters for fertiliser because ammonia plants produce concentrated CO₂ streams that can, in some cases, be captured more readily than emissions from dispersed sources. Low-carbon ammonia made from gas with carbon capture could become part of a cleaner fertiliser supply chain, provided capture rates, storage integrity and full lifecycle emissions are transparent.
AI and digital twins can improve plant reliability and efficiency. In LNG and ammonia facilities, the most practical applications are predictive maintenance, compressor optimisation, energy-use reduction and early detection of process instability. For executives, the value is not “AI” as a slogan. It is fewer outages, lower fuel use, safer operations and more reliable supply.
Green ammonia is also emerging. Instead of producing hydrogen from natural gas, green ammonia uses hydrogen from renewable-powered electrolysis. The IEA notes that near-zero-emission ammonia routes include electrolysis, methane pyrolysis and fossil-based production with carbon capture. These technologies could gradually reduce fertiliser’s dependence on fossil gas, but cost, scale, renewable power availability and infrastructure remain major constraints.
Methane pyrolysis is another pathway to watch. It splits methane into hydrogen and solid carbon rather than producing CO₂ directly. If it can be scaled with low-carbon energy and credible carbon handling, it could create a lower-emission route from gas to hydrogen and ammonia. But it should be treated as an emerging technology, not a guaranteed solution.
The executive risk: treating energy, food and climate as separate strategies
The biggest mistake is to manage these systems in silos.
An energy minister may focus on LNG security.
An agriculture minister may focus on fertiliser affordability.
A climate team may focus on emissions reduction.
An industry minister may focus on manufacturing competitiveness.
But the market does not respect those boundaries. A gas-price shock can shut fertiliser plants. A fertiliser shock can reduce farm affordability. Lower fertiliser use can affect yields. Food-price pressure can create political and social instability.
That is why executives and governments need a more integrated view.
The question is no longer: "How do we secure gas?"
It is: "How do we secure gas where it is essential, reduce emissions where it is used, protect fertiliser supply, and build alternatives before the next shock arrives?"
What decision-makers should do now
The first priority is to identify where gas is genuinely strategic. Not every use of gas has the same value. Gas used for fertiliser, industrial heat, grid reliability and essential manufacturing may deserve a different policy treatment from gas used where mature alternatives already exist.
The second priority is to build cleaner production pathways. That means methane measurement, carbon capture where credible, electrification where practical, AI-enabled efficiency and investment in low-carbon ammonia.
The third priority is to diversify fertiliser resilience. Countries should not only ask where they import fertiliser from, but where the gas, ammonia, shipping routes and production technologies behind that fertiliser come from.
The fourth priority is to support developing economies. Many poorer countries are most exposed to fertiliser price shocks and least able to absorb them. FAO has warned that because natural gas is the primary feedstock for nitrogen fertilisers, elevated energy prices can sustain pressure on fertiliser costs, with food-security consequences. Clean-energy and fertiliser strategy therefore needs to include finance, technology transfer, regional production, soil-health programmes and better nitrogen-use efficiency.
The bigger message for Gastech 2026
Gastech 2026 in Bangkok should not be framed only as an LNG event.
It should be framed as a meeting point for the systems now connected by gas: power, fertiliser, food security, hydrogen, shipping, carbon management, AI, cybersecurity, finance and developing-region resilience.
That is where the executive conversation needs to move.
Gas will remain strategically important where it supports reliability, food production and industrial stability. But its future role depends on whether producers and consuming nations can reduce methane, lower process emissions, support cleaner ammonia, and use technology to make supply more resilient.
The industry’s next advantage will not belong only to those with the largest reserves.
It will belong to those who can connect the dots — from gas field to fertiliser plant, from fertiliser plant to farm, from farm to food security, and from today’s energy system to a cleaner, more resilient one.