Excellent two posts - first class even - better than the fatuous stuff normally posted, or simply re-pasted indiscriminately here without thought or background research for relevence. The first TU on each of them were from me. Very ungenerous lot here even though more than 70 people had read it before me.
TU are for posts that provide new information of interest to shareholders, whether positive OR negative.
Nevermind...
As you noted, water and additional costs for remoteness will be the really big economic hits to your suggestions for UCG and CTL/CTP, but the concepts you outlined would fit a decent number of other Aussie coal sites and companies less remote but still away from the NIMBY set at Camden.
The other stinker you mentioned is CCS. CCS has a double whammy on fuel because CO2 emissions per litre of fuel are about double that of fossil liquids, simply because of CO2 created during manufacture. In carbon tax world that's not helpful. HOWEVER -
From the USEPA Gasoline carbon content per (US)gallon: 2,421 grams Diesel carbon content per (US) gallon: 2,778 grams
(Note: diesel would be 0.73 kg/litre x 2 because of manufacture = 1.46 kg/litre)
At a final $50/ tonne CO2 (not the $26 being sneaked in at the moment) the cost of carbon tax per litre of synthetic diesel would be:
1.46 kg CO2/litre x $50/tonne /1000 = 7.3 cents per litre.
In the scheme of things who cares.
Unfortunately CTP sits on tight formations. We can hope that somewhere between 700m and 3000m there is a few meters of much better permeability and porosity. The magic of 700m is that CO2 becomes liquid at pressure heads at that depth. Liquid CO2 may be useful for flushing out fluids.
However, at a taxed cost of 7.3 cents/l chasing CCS wouldn't happen. Not at CTP and probably not anywhere.
Great two posts.
CTP Price at posting:
26.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
