prospectus next week, page-52

"wrt an unproven ''subterranean'' variant of the CHTD technology. A tech that seed supporters of such a radical technology profess to back, yet seem to not want all the risk / reward anymore"

You keep saying it is unproven, yet the Exergen Chief Executive Officer Trevor Bourne says it is "proven technology". We know that the process has been tested successfully at scale at a Beaconsfield pilot plant facility over many years. So what information are you using to keep saying it is unproven?

"The big name backers so often heralded here and elsewhere as the technology's white knights had thrown about 5 mil a piece at the technology."

I think you will find it is $10 million not $5. The big name backers are large overseas companies, they could fund the entire project start-up but where would that leave there ownership in the company and the FIRB and the willingness of government to "sell the farm". If they were to pour in more money and take a larger stake then the risk would potentially go up as government would be more reluctant to hand over land to overseas interests. An ASX listing ensures that they can still have their stake, Exergen can still raise capital and the big backers still get the coal off-take which is their main aim.

"Three above ground heat and squeeze methods that give us an easy to understand overview for comparison to CHTD, that I would like to pass comment on, are;

Energy-brix ( Latrobe Valley )

MTE, ( Australia ) and,

K fuel ( USA ) "

Energy-brix, is nothing like CHTD, it does not process the coal in the liquid state. Coldry is simply a progression of the Energy-brix tech, using heat from power generation to dry the coal.

MTE stands for Mechanical Thermal Expression which is not hydrothermal dewatering. It is basically a tea-straining approach. So they are different sure they use heat and pressure but a totally different approach.

K fuel, is a tech that uses a hyrdothermal reactor, however it is limited by the way it applies the pressure. It uses pressure pumps not head pressure, which means higher operating costs and the inability to run a continuous process.

"The first comment that I would draw attn to is the fact that none of these heat and squeeze methods are commercially viable on a stand alone basis."

Wow Rupert, you have not been keeping up with the latest developments at all.

Here are a few links for you to read:

Shenhua shows the way to make gas from coal

Shenhua Group begins to install coal-to-liquid devices
(note the use of reactor)

Shenhua reaps huge profits from CTL project

"From all reports cited in the Latrobe Valley times c/o Tom Arup et al, an amount, of approximately $55,000,000.00 is required next year by Energy-Brix to keep their heat and squeeze operation afloat. "

I am not surprised as it is a variant on the very primitive Coldry theme.

"Paradox #1,,, keeping the lignite power plants running"

The stations seem to be looking for commercially proven techs, and yes there will be near future there will be no shortage of potential BCE if the ALDP is fulfilled.

Dryfining at Loy Yang

"Paradox 2,, Theoretic subterranean heat and squeeze techs.

But without an actual subterranean, working pilot plant, operating for R&D analysis for many years without problems,"

Rupert, like I said before you obviously have absolutely no idea about the working subterranean pilot plant which used a ~700m air rise from and abandoned gold mine in Beaconsfield?

"Finally, I consider CHTD to be the best theoretical heat and squeeze tech out there, and do hope we get to experience a real in situ subterranean pilot/demonstration plant using what appears on the surface to be very beneficial and proven to the evolution and support of lignite refinement tech, overall"

Great to hear, and now that you know it has been proven at scale not just theoretical, and that the Chinese are making mega profits from CTL, you will be dumping your worthless ESI script pronto.