fwiw...

Howdy All

Been a while since I posted...but have been keeping an eye on HC threads...and thought I would throw a few postulations out there "for what it's worth".

Firstly, RDU...out of all the ESI'ers that come onto the MNM threads - I will give you the credit that you are at least trying to post factual information with some credibility and reasoning. To the others - why waste your time and ours by posting banal comments - really, how many times can one poster keep bringing up "high Sulphur" as an objection? Additionally, if I was an ESI holder, I wouldn't be quoting anything Kos has said in the past verbatim!

ESI and MNM are not direct competitors...yes, they are involved in a similar space trying to develop a similar business model ie BCE, but MNM is an explorer/tenement holder/potential miner with a probable JV with a company that holds the tech and ESI is the "owner" of the tech. If anything, comparisons should be made between ESI and Exergen.

Having said that, if comparisons are to be made between the two techs, I personally like both and truly hope both succeed. However, I have seen numerous companies with great ideas/technologies that are insolvent because they didn't have the right management with the financial nouse to bring the idea to market and/or survive long enough to get to market. Hence, my money is behind MNM - better management, better financial control, lower share dilution, etc. (ESI'ers I am reflecting on past management - the new ones may be quite good - time will tell).

In respect to the latest ann, I believe that the story is unfolding nicely. I think that the S levels (whilst high) are not a deal breaker and/or a concern to anyone in MNM. Technology advances with the new power stations mean that S can be reduced via scrubber techs, etc. that reduce S issues. Hence the article re China looking at high S coals as an option.

The real key here is the CV of the BCE product. I believe that is what the buyer is looking at...impurities can be reduced through fairly cost effective methods, so the higher the CV, the better. It seems that MNM can tick that box with:

"The lower moisture content and higher net wet calorific values indicate that the Bacchus Marsh coal is possibly of a higher rank than the coals of the Latrobe Valley."

....and "possibly" has been noted.

Ok - so if the BCE is of a comparible/higher CV - then the question becomes can it be produced cheaper than digging up/crushing/washing black coal. This won't come to fruition until the drilling is completed and the prefeasibility scope done to determine mining economics, CHTD process, capital costs, exporting, etc. If the answer to that is yes, then we are on a winner...a BIG winner.

Right, so what about the Exergen JV. Whilst we can speculate that it will wait for JORC and so on, I think that it will happen when it happens. Why? I believe that Exergen are not looking to on sell their tech, they are looking to partner with companies that can provide the feedstock ie. mine and supply the brown coal in a good location to offshore it.

If they wanted to sell the tech, they could have done already. My thoughts are that they see the most upside in creating the BCE and onselling that...that is the target goal here and therefore, the JV will happen with MNM in time...not necessarily within some SH timeframes.

Additionally, if I was Exergen, I would be looking at controlling the feedstock (full stop). Whilst a JV is an option, don't rule out a potential takeover of MNM if all the cards stack up.

Again, drawing a long bow - but as alluded to above, my postulations.

So whilst some think that acid levels, S content, etc. are important topics and deal breakers, for mine, it is CV, cost of getting BC out of the ground and processed into BCE, overall economics and ensuring that the company has the funds and management to see it through that are more important.

Cheers for now K