Ann: Petroleum Production Licence issued, page-88

Agreed CheyneD (btw ... an alum of the USC Trojans?).

"Make no mistake, eventually the fundamentals of this stock will be reflected in the SP/MC"

THE FUNDAMENTAL that best captures a stock "intrinsic value" (IV) is the risk adjusted present value of the future cash flows generated by the company's projects above their cost of capital.

Which is easy to value because that is zero. The other part of the equation that presents us with a stock's MC is the "Speculative Value" (SV). You only have to look at say Lithium Mining stocks to get a feet for how SV can get out of control in the early years (maybe even LCK has advanced to fast recently). At present add anything "EV" or in our case "H2" to increase SV.

So today, 100% of the MC would be considered as speculative value. But there is a well defined path that a resource stock takes to "earn" that IV and the SV goes up and down as investors react to news flow and interpret what it means to the eventual outcome - ROACE, ROE, FCFY, etc., - all the real fundamentals.

I'm the new guy here. My investment began yesterday. So in some ways I'm like the donkey who followed the carrots and now with the PPL issued the pathway is reasonably clear to the CDP to really find out if Syngas has the beans (so to speak). Good results from the Pilot PCD so expectation for CDP
is high

https://www.australianmining.com.au/features/new-advances-in-syngas-production-using-latest-process-technology/
Successful syngas production "As with all pilot projects, there is always a risk that the project may not be commercially feasible. This was not the case with the Leigh Creek Energy Project; in fact, its success exceeded expectations. The pilot project resulted in the successful production of commercial syngas – with a peak flow rate of 7.5 million cubic feet a day, which was higher than anticipated for the ISG process. In addition, the pilot study demonstrated that Leigh Creek Energy has operated the ISG gasifier safely through data analysed from surrounding environmental monitoring wells before, during and after the trial"

Now I've tried to run base numbers using what was said about the pilot and the PFS



The key is how much a single CGU produces. PCD says it produced at a MAX rate of 7.5Mmcfpd. Convert that to GJ and then divide by 35 to get the tonnes of Urea per day

Stage 1 says 5 CGUs AND a 5MW power plant ... so I have to divert a certain amount of GJ of gas away from Urea production to electricity generation. Used a common conversion of 7,000 BTUs to generate 1KWh of power. LCK power may obviously consume more than that - don't know.

Stage 2 has a 100WMW plant so more GJ going to power generation. With 41 CGUs and a sustained production rate of just 2.65 Mmcfpd, LCK produces the desired 1MTpa of Urea and can do this for 30 years (consuming roughly a little more than the 2P in-situ gas reserves of 1,153PJ).

So I'm excited to see what the BFS puts out. Also very interested in the "green funding" options for a few good reasons (besides carbon neutrality post 2030) as
1) The UREA process itself removes carbon
2) LCK is replacing an imported - seaborne - product. And total seaborne shipping, if it were a country, would be the 6th largest carbon emitter ... so this project is lowering "our" carbon footprint in that manner also.

Don't take my numbers as gospel. If anyway else has done similar analysis on PFS, I would be interested in reading it.