Thanks Jumpstart,Firstly, let me say your debate is extremely...

Thanks Jumpstart,

Firstly, let me say your debate is extremely robust and factual, however I still disagree with some of its content.

I stick to what I said, regarding Central's thermal coal. The very fact that brown coals vary FROM 0.1 to 5% (by your own admission) intimates an average value of around 2.5% Sulphur. Central's coal from what John Heugh has mentioned is between 0.1 and 0.4, giving an average of 0.25 (and it has been suggested it is much lower). That there was NO evidence of sulphur even above 0.5% over a much more expansive area demonstrates the vastly superior quality of the DEPOSIT, not just individual seams.

Even if I halve that brown coal average again, and DOUBLE CTP's, it is still 2.5 times higher than Central's.

Not to be a stickler, but this would make Central's coals sulphur content MUCH lower overall, and on a resource that dwarfs the Victorian Brown Coal deposits by a magnitude considered staggering by even the most conservative; a primary candidate for a project like CTL, UCG/GTL benefiting from economies of scale.

As for your suggestion that the Victorian Government displays a greater inclination towards harnessing coal power, I cannot argue to the contrary as no one as yet has really put it to the NT government in any real terms. So I will definitely agree with you.

I appreciate the factual debate though JS. Thank you for keeping it about the topic, unlike so many others on here.

RB