I am less interested in the handwaving and flowery adjectives,...

I am less interested in the handwaving and flowery adjectives, more interested in the results and asking why



what happened here?


Phases 1,2 and 3 used weathered/outcrop samples. Phase 4 used fresh/core samples. Fresh cannelite it seems is less responsive to liquefaction than weathered cannelite.

Phase 4 results are still interim, GRV have higher temperatures to report. However;



Also, WTF! what happened to +70%



Another puzzling statement



I thought MFA is/was sub-economic because liquid hydrocarbon yields were too low and the gas yields too high and that's why it was canned for liquefaction.


At the end of phase 3 Alpha was was closing in >70% total hydrocarbon yields. Now, on the eve of the PFS, using interim phase 4 results, from the fresh rock that represents basically all of the resource, we are talking about total hydrocarbon yields of 75% from tobanite (4.3mt) and 40% from cannelite (23.7mt).

That's 45% across the resource. From that 45% is a sketchy gas content but taking the company's 8% at face value, total oil/aspaltene yields are around 37%

37% is a whole lot better than MFA's 15%, but its a whole less than 70% we were chasing.

We have an amazing and unique project but forgive me for being a little disappointed and annoyed with company's (and some posters') obfuscation and 'nothing to see here, move along' statements.

So what happens... the pilot plant will claw back this drop in yields. The pilot plant gives the company greater control and more flexibility in testing liquefaction variables. They will solve their mistake in testing cannelite.

And I consider the PFS will describe a halfway value point. We will have to wait for the pilot plant and DFS to see the real magic.