Some very fair questions MB and I'll do my best to provide a little reasoning.
The issue with facilities of this nature, as opposed to a mine operation for example, is that the upfront capital expenditure is enormous with gasification plants. Once they are built (at considerable CAPEX cost) the operational aspect (OPEX) is relatively minimal. Essentially the gas comes in, is frozen and is then pumped onto ships are exported to wherever. Looking at the mine example, there are obviously capital costs up front however there are major ongoing costs as the operational aspect is laborious and labour intensive and mines morph into different beasts as the resource moves in location (often from open cut to underground), material grades change and complexity changes also.
So, following the mine example, your costs are approvals, exploration (proving up the resource), establishing some infrastructure at the mine and then a logistical challenge of getting the product to port (i.e. rail) and of course building a port. One of the most capital intensive mines on the drawing board at the moment is Adani's Carmichael mine in central Queensland. Capex is touted as around $16B, that includes the mine, vast lengths of rail, port works, the whole box and dice for a mine with a projected mine life of 60 odd years. It is a huge mine the likes of which we don't see often here in Oz.
Now it's difficult to put up a comparative gasification plant but I can throw a few numbers around to give you an idea of some examples, Gorgon (Chevron owned) has a capex cost, of circa $70Billion ($52M USD), Pluto at Karratha spent $16B on one train, APLNG in Gladstone was up over $25B last I heard. Ichthys In Darwin is supposed to be around the $45B also, but by the sounds of it that will blow out also.
What all that means is that the management teams for these projects are enormous as you have to virtually build the thing in theory before you turn a sod on site, you can't suck it and see what happens with a shoe string team. And it's not just technology and marketing, far from it. The process for getting these projects up and running requires serious front end grunt, and bucket loads of it. Detailed engineering designs are required not only for construction but also for the regulatory process given the environmental and regional/national commercial/trade implications, there's new pipeline routes and/or access to existing mains, gas availability (the stumbling block with FL ultimately) , offshore customers and the regulatory process of getting that over the line for non FTA countries, the rigors of project finance, no good signing up someone if it's not on paper that the banks want, getting contractors on board with commercial deals that don't screw you over (some of the Aussie projects have had 100% capex blow-outs......ouch), the list goes on.
You also need people with significant industry credibility to run these processes (or no one will talk to you), and I think we have a solid team now on the wheel, sadly though, they cost money and they don't come cheap when you poach them from the 'majors'. Whether anyone thinks they are doing their job well or not, the costs associated with acquiring and keeping good people are massive, and you can't just tell them to take a few months off if the project is delayed, they will obviously vanish if you try that. It's just a fact that this will be a multi billion dollar company once projects are up and running, problem is you need to run it like a multi billion dollar company well before it becomes one.
Good thing is, once it's built the Opex costs are low. Trouble is, the front end is where the costs are like it or not.
Hope that clarifies some of the issues.
Happy to discuss further.
Expand
