I'm reminded of the car wars between USA and Japan in the seventies.
The Japanese went for efficiency while the US went for more horsepower. I think APA were trying to be too sophisticated in the design fix for removing Sulphur.
All parts of the plant can handle 70 Tj/d except the upstream bit removing Sulphur. Why not just double the (inefficient) existing components that remove Sulphur? No new magic technology needs to be discovered.
Obviously this would have been considered but no explanation has ever been given as to why this will not work (that I have seen).
Ann: Quarterly Report - Q2 FY23, page-21
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 31 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Add COE (ASX) to my watchlist
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
22.5¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $594.0M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 22.5¢ | 22.5¢ | 22.0¢ | $593.7K | 2.672M |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 290435 | 21.5¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 22.5¢ | 205975 | 5 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 16.10pm 28/06/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
| COE (ASX) Chart |