markie, you frustrate me big time, but against my better...

markie, you frustrate me big time, but against my better judgment I am going to respond.

You say.

With the rejection of the plant and the costing of it i do agree with lck n the team.

Fair enough, I understand what you are saying.

Then you try to support your statement with a lot of garbage. I will interpret it for the benefit of others who don't have the time.

1. Your forte seems to be digging holes and/or trenches.
2. By your own admission you can tell shit from clay.
3. You have a serious problem with senior staff in general and engineering staff in particular.

You must remember, markie, that however hard you try, you can't drive the train from the guard's van. Accept your position in life.

Now to the project. This change of direction is a predicament that is not uncommon with major projects. It is reported that up to 70% of projects fail due to lack of feasibility.

Fortunately, in this case, NRZ has a possible remedy.

The project has gone through the Conceptional Stage and is now in the preliminary design and detailed costing phases.

By admission the of NRZ, preliminary costing is above that acceptable. Costs have to be cut and the Power Station, being outside the core business, is the easiest to address.

Unlike you, IMO, the concept of an integral stand-alone power system is very acceptable and should be abandoned only as a last resort.

Properly configured and with adequate capacity it has a high probability of maintaining continuous power supply. (pity about a lack of emergency gas supply)

What they propose now is for a single transmission line from one country town to another smaller country town. The way electricity grids are now behaving, I would suggest that a local integral power supply would be far more reliable and cheaper to run.

The cost savings, if it were to go ahead could be up to $100 million. And less stress on CCS and the environment as well. Also, it has been reported that burning syngas in an open exhaust GT emits more CO2 than burning coal in a power station. This proposed change of direction could be a tipping point in favour of the project.

You have given JP his head, and he won't go down without a fight, so let him have a go. But alas, IMO, I think he will fail.

As I said at the outset, it was a very acceptable, if not the optimum, design concept. Just turned out the project cost projection is unacceptably over budget. It would appear that the earlier ballpark figure of $2.6 billion is currently deemed to be unachievable.

Just my thoughts, for what they are worth. J L.