I think there is plenty of room for various models and there is no one answer.
I think you said you are in the WA wheatbelt, if you get a chance to go and visit CO2 in Melbourne or CCF in Perth I would suggest that would be a good idea.
I think you will find that both companies have been doing quite a lot of work on many different species over the last few years.
As far as relying on the CSIRO and "getting off their butts" I know that CCF have sampled and tested over 7,000 trees across dozens of sites to calculate their own carbon models which have then been signed off by the top four forestry consultants in the country as well as the government. CO2 have developed their models over an even longer timeframe, so I dont think you can accuse them of not doing their own research.
Again, looking at it purely from an investor point of view, there just isnt enough longer term data for species like acacia in Australia in a plantation setting. That is why the 2 leading companies in the space CCF & CO2 arent using them. Maybe in 5 to 10 years when there is some sort of meaningful data set investors will be prepared to invest their dollars.
CCF Price at posting:
35.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
