Addressable market and Carbon Sequestration, page-8

Thank you for the nice words.

The reasoning for trying to draw attention yo the post, is that if lwp's product is applicable for Carbon Credits - this would again reduce the cost base, as for every ton of carbon assuming applicability a carbon credit could be claimed - as you will note from the original post - a massive difference, meaning addressable market increases significantly, also that Lwp could be seen as a slightly more Green friendly proppant. (previous disclaimer applies).

http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/coal-dust-carbon-credits

and http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/12/01/fly-ash-bricks-reduce-emissions

are great articles to demonstrate the coat benefit, but more excitingly for me the fact that the world bank lends a hand in these sorts of projects. If bricks can get credits, I would expect proppants can. IMHO.

DYOR, but if LWP can get the manufacturing cost down, through innovation and or Carbon Credits - the addressable market is significantly larger than stated in presentations to date.

BTW, I aplore the management of LWP, their presentations seem fairly balanced and not to rampy. If CO2 seq. credits is a potential and or competing with not just ceramics but also resin coated sand, in both scenarios I would be appreciative if someone could take the time to work the numbers.

what does 1% of the ceramic and resin coated sand market look like?
what does the potential of carbon credits in reducing the cost of lwp do the above but also to our coat base per ton.

if anyone is in touch with mgmt, I would love their thinking here.