JS,Most of what you say has some measure of accuracy, however I...

JS,

Most of what you say has some measure of accuracy, however I would have to disagree with you on a few points.

The argument here shouldn't be on CO2 creation, rather the technology being developed in CONJUNCTION with UCG/GTL and CTL.

CCS - or Carbon Capture System's are being tested by many companies including the CSIRO to be used in conjunction with these technologies, because as you rightly point out, they both create significant enough amounts of CO2 to be noticed by the government.

They (research groups and commercial corporations) are testing various models of sequestering and re-injection (to create methanol), neither of which has become prominent enough at the moment to be called "the answer"

The general consensus is that these technologies will require CCS to catch up before consideration of viability. The commercial sense is already obvious, however with the tree-huggers and socialist agenda government we have, it will be increasingly imperative to secure CCS tech prior to really considering a UCG/GTL or CTL campaign.

I would venture to say though, that such a hefty project would take years to finalise. If you also consider a JORC campaign taking between 12 and 24 months, we're perhaps 7 years away from any such project, in which time, CCS technologies have time to catch up. Particularly because they are receiving increased focus from research and commercial groups.

I also disagree with your premise that Victorian brown coals would somehow take ascendancy over NT coals. Central's coals, based on the information available, has very low sulphur content - the primary impurity that needs to be removed before CTL or GTL. Victorian brown coals are very HIGH in sulphur, not to mention ash. Central's coring to date has revealed coal of Sub-Bituminous B Thermal grading. This coal, and its relative isolation make it the PRIMARY candidate for UCG/GTL and/or CTL technology as the thermal rating is low enough that it would not probably benefit from exporting, and is a high enough grading whereby the GTL process would be at its most efficient. Given the isolation, building an energy hub focused on GTL in this remote area would have multiple benefits as Anon pointed out.

Now, whether or not you're correct about the government not wanting any part of this is anyone's guess, not least because neither of us can claim to know which government will be in power when/if this ever eventuates for Central. So for now, we'd have to agree that anything could potentially make the agenda, because to suggest otherwise would perhaps be a little narrow minded.

RB