Ya thanks for the efforts, regardless of the methodology it will no doubt be interesting to see what the figures released tomorrow contain.
poyndexter, in response;
Q1/ “Why do you feel so compelled?”
Compelled to…??
Q2/ "Why are you so concerned others might not see the potential you apparently do?"
I'm not concerned at all, people will see things in their own way and I personally am not concerned about this at all. Forums are about views, providing information and discussion. However if someone told me 2+2 = 3 I would contribute by correcting them instead of letting them continue and thus, assist in them getting a true representation of the information.
Why have you posted your views on UCG and, what made you so compelled to do so… probably to contribute to the best of your means aswell correct?
Q3/ “Why wouldn't you be more concerned that others might or might not see balance?”
I have followed this company since its initial listing attempt back in 05 and subsequent listing in 06 and, have been known to be very critical of certain events. Only recently have I started to contribute to the forum again and provide information as to the best of my knowledge to assist holders, which may not have a certain level knowledge or are going down the wrong path in terms of the company’s perceived strategy.
That said – all information is always based on solid grounds and I choose to provide this information at the expense of my own time to which I gain no benefit!
From this it’s then up to the individual investor to look at the pro’s and cons of their investment and take a balanced view by thorough research and understanding – not just be a lemming and follow others.
Now in regards to the economics and “Australia’s place” in this industry I’d suggest everyone undertake their own economic and fundamental research in this area as it is quite an indepth area to analyse. Although Australia is in its infantile stages of UCG exploitation, my own personal research gives the opinion that the industry has significant potential and, I trust the CSIRO, Carbon Energy, Linc and Cougar etc have all done their due diligence on this aswell. Until proven nationally for a sustained period everything has risk. Seems the Russians have been doing it for the last 40 years but whether they are turning a profit or not is another story!
Here are some links to assist background information:
http://www.ucgp.com :
http://www.ucgp.com/key-facts/worldwide-interest/
And general UCG Info from this site:
•Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) is the gasification of coal in-situ, which is achieved by drilling boreholes into the coal and injecting water/air or water/oxygen mixtures.
•It is both an extraction process (like coal mining) and a conversion process (gasification) in one step.
•The product gas from UCG is a combustible syngas containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide and methane (H2, CO CH4). It can be used at surface for heating, power generation, hydrogen production, or the manufacturer of key liquid fuels such as diesel fuel or methanol.
•Interest in UCG as a secure and economic source of gas supply has increased over the past five years, most coal producing countries now have a comprehensive UCG programme comprising of feasibility studies, planning demonstrations and commercial scale projects
•In-seam and Directional Drilling, technology formulated for the oil and gas industry, transforms UCG process •New studies are now underway in China , India, South Africa, Australia and the UK
•Commercial scale projects have started in Australia, China, South Africa, India.
•Large-scale operations (>1GW) were developed by the Soviets in the 1970's and at least one plant in Uzbekistan still operates today.
•Low natural gas prices in the 1990's eliminated much of the ongoing development in US, although in Europe, a substantial programme of development in deeper seams was maintained until the present day.
•Extensive trials in Europe, the US, Russia, Australia, have proven the technology on many occasions
•UCG in combination with CCS (CO2 capture and storage) shows considerable promise as a low cost solution to carbon abatement. The composition of the syngas is particularly suited to CO2 capture and the high pressure from deep UCG will require smaller and less costly plant. The possibility of storing CO2 in nearby coal seams is a further option.
•UCG offers a clean, safe, secure, indigenous energy supply
•Lower cost of plant and site development
In regards to your other queries about the UCG with respect to CTP, I’m sure you’re aware that CTP intends on feeding this gas into a GTL facility and not sending it off to a power station for starters?? Hence your comment about the general density of UCG and the competition from other players in the UCG industry with “more than enough coal” is somewhat pointless and irrelevant as the GTL product central will produce will ultimately be exported to the international market where not supplied domestically. (Linc’s 20k bbl/day plant currently supplies 3% of Australia’s domestic use)
The query in regards to coal composition and potential for UCG is valid. There are several things which we do understand and, if you had of spent the time to look, what we do know is that the coals at Blamore are suggesting a higher calorific value than that of most other Australian coals and these coals also correlate to that of the Ipswich basin which are known to be some of the more volatile in the country. It’s obvious that further confirmation of the other relevant properties of the coals for UCG suitability are required - and this would be achieved by undertaking several fully cored wells over an expansive area including flow tests to assess this. At present, we have historical and recent data to assess and thus far looks very encouraging.
Your concerns of the hydrogeology are of importance aswell. As we know we have a portion of the great artesian running through the western section of the NT and groundwater contamination et al in any instance needs to be looked at. Whether its QLD, NSW, VIC etc, UCG needs to be assessed on a site by site/individual case basis with all relevant factors considered.
For groundwater circumstances I suggest holders read this article to gain their own general appreciation of the factors:
Overall poyndexter the information I have generally provided in the threads lately has a more detailed relation to CTP and its activities.
Any information in regards to UCG as a whole, from engineering, scientific, economic, risk, and national place are highly important and clearly warrant in depth review but there’s only so many hours in the day I have free and I’d rather not spend it typing up a full analysis in HC over every aspect of every business I invest in.
As more data comes to light from CTP’s drilling activities and geological interpretation, then this can then be analysed back to the direct impact and technological methods of UCG that can be applied.
At present I have complete trust in the management team and trust that they know what they are doing in this area.
CTP Price at posting:
11.4¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)