hold-up, page-2

in advance, apologies for the lengthy post once again by myself- better to be well researched and factual than post speculated and emotional posts with ramping unsubstantiated

pixby, im glad someone also suspects the same reasoning as i did a few months ago but got shunned for being too optimistic for thinking the same as yourself-

some argued that JH would not be willing to further dilute there % in their tenements but going out on a limb here, I strongly am of the view that JH is strongly in negotiations and due dilligence with a major pursuing UCG or GTL/CTL technology- I take this view not from pure speculation but from factors which JH has alluded to and also from the 4 corners report a month or so ago which showed the trend that this type of technology could possibly be what csg is to the market now - a red hot sector- ( without the high emmisions though)

1. JH has presented and continues to present at future energy conferences and continues to do so promoting the 1 trillion tonned of coal we potentially are sitting on- making it an ideal use for such technologies-

2. JH has discussed this concept numerous times in BRR and media reports about the potential value that such technology will add to the organisation should it be able to certify coal reserves and find a industry leader in USG/GTL/CTL technologies willing to take a stake in CTP to bring the dream to realisation-

3. Even though ties with Rohan Gilespie's EIR organisation has predominantly been seen as a strategic move by RG to get in early and book a seat at the table for CSG assets in the CTP treasure chest should they be fruitful on upcoming drilling results,keep in mind that I amstill of the view that JH chose RG and EIR not solely for this justification-

RG was given the green light by John Heugh as he has strong proven experience in drilling,exploration and success in proving and establishing a successful CSG business model as his proven with his tenure at BHP-

His networks and industry experience was another underlying factor which gave JH confidence to follow farm in terms with EIR- However, some may have not taken the underlying business strategy for EIR which is of signifance for CTP

read this- could be the missing link that many have overlooked- published on http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:RCtQlxrKhFQJ:www.lincenergy.com.au/pdf/coverage-128.pdf+eir+homepage+and+rohan+gillespie&hl=en&gl=au&sig=AFQjCNGE6tOPoDVYMXKCEFR1_HkFJG6cdg

GTL, CTL picking up pace
David Upton
Thursday, 10 July 2008

GAS-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids technologies are finally attracting attention after hovering on the fringes of Australia’s downstream energy industries for decades.
A combination of factors have pushed GTL and CTL to centre stage, including record crude oil prices, concerns over the security of oil supplies and the
potential to convert Australia’s vast coal reserves into more greenhouse- friendly fossil fuels.

In GTL and CTL, diesel is produced from coal and gas via the Fischer-Tropsch
process, a catalysed chemical reaction in which carbon monoxide and hydrogen are converted into liquid hydrocarbons, which can then be refined to produce diesel.
GTL and CTL are getting strong support from Federal Minister for Resources and Energy Martin Ferguson, who sees it as a way to offset Australia’s rapidly depleting oil reserves and shore up our national energy security.
However, Fischer-Tropsch fuels are gaining most recognition for their commercial opportunities. The process can produce a high-performance
ultra-clean synthetic diesel with zero sulphur content.

In Europe, GTL is selling at a significant premium, helped by diesel-powered victories by Fischer-Tropsch reactor
Renault at Le Mans. tower at Linc’s
Chinchilla operation An even greater market opportunity is created by blending regular and synthetic diesels to meet increasingly tough environmental standards for sulphur emissions.

In Australia, CTL seems to have a lead on GTL.
CTL player Linc Energy has commissioned a pilot plant in February at Chinchilla, Queensland,
making it the most advanced of Australia’s coal-to-liquids projects. The Brisbane-based company uses proprietary underground coal gasification technology to inject air
into coal seams, which are subsequently ignited. Gas is extracted through a production well and converted to diesel and jet fuels via a Fischer-Tropsch plant.
Linc says the process can convert coal deposits that are uneconomic to mine into high-quality diesel fuels and other liquids. This was a key attraction for Adelaide-based Sapex, which has teamed up with Linc to explore the potential of an underground coal gasification project on Sapex tenements in the remote Arckaringa basin. Linc now look sets to takeover Sapex in a friendly merger via a
scheme of arrangement.

Linc’s Chinchilla pilot plant is yielding information for the design and construction of a commercial
plant with an eventual production capacity of 20,000 barrels per day. Monash Energy (a joint venture between Shell and Anglo Coal) is also working on a potential CTL
project in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley. By comparison, Australian GTL has ground to make up. A joint venture between Sasol and Chevron was to look at developing Western Australia’s Wheatstone field for GTL, but Chevron has now decided to use that field for LNG.

Other companies considering GTL include Arrow Energy and Central Petroleum. Arrow Energy conducted a study last year that found a CSM-based GTL plant producing 20,000
barrels of oil per day was commercially and technically viable. However, Arrow’s Clint Adams said the company’s near-term focus was on mid-scale LNG plants because these offered improved economies, involved simpler technical infrastructure and lower up- front capital costs, and could be upscaled more easily to meet growing gas production.

Perth-based Central Petroleum sees GTL as an opportunity to monetise potentially vast fields of undiscovered gas – conventional and CSM – in the Northern Territory’s remote Pedirka, Amadeus and Georgina basins. In its most recent quarterly report, the company said estimates of
undiscovered gas in place were enough to support a GTL plant with capacity of 140,000 barrels per
day for 70 years. Managing director John Heugh said this capacity would be equal to the world’s largest GTL
production facility – the Pearl plant being jointly developed by Shell and the Qatar Government at a
cost of about $US10 billion. He said independent studies for Central Petroleum indicated that GTL production would be profitable at levels of greater than $US40 per barrel, based on conventional gas, and $US45/bbl based on
CSM.

Unlisted newcomer Pacific GTL also has big ambitions for GTL, primarily for the production of diesel fuel. The Sydney-based company has just completed an $8 million capital raising from European investors to fund a pre-FEED study for its SunState project in the Dalby area in southern Queensland. The project is designed to draw feedstock from CSM producers in the Surat Basin. Pacific GTL has technology partnerships with global engineering group AMEC and Energy Infrastructure and Resources (EIR), a developer of low-emission energy projects.
SunState is designed to begin production in 2015 from one GTL train producing 17,000 barrels of fuel per day, which is equivalent to about 2% of current demand for petrol and diesel fuels in Australia.

EIR managing director and Pacific GTL director Rohan Gillespie said the capital cost of each GTL train
was estimated at about $1.5 billion and there was a market opportunity for several more trains at multiple sites along the eastern seaboard. “It’s forecast that by 2015, the amount of diesel being imported will be equivalent to the output from 18 GTL trains,” he said. “The reality is we could not build these plants quick enough to satisfy
the market.” Financing would be assisted by tapping into demand from superannuation funds for infrastructure
assets with long life spans and stable cash flows. Pacific GTL estimates that SunState will require 1.7 trillion cubic feet of gas over its 25-year life, which will make it a large competitor with LNG projects for CSM feedstock. However, Gillespie said Pacific GTL would be able to match the prices paid by LNG operators for CSM feedstock.
“In fact, GTL will have a more direct link to oil prices than the LNG projects, and we think it will be a
more attractive proposition for gas suppliers,” Gillespie said.

Personally, I feel that the delays could be with BG pushing the chain and further trying to dismiss CTP's ambitiuos plans for UCG/GTL technology as many would be aware of how anti this technology they are as was shown with their litigation with linc energy. Could be the reasons for delays in our drillings schedules/drilling and JV negotiations with further parties-

The question is if so,who would want to exploit our coal for this technology should we prove that we are sitting on 1 trillion tonnes of coal. I strongly doubt that Linc Energy have the capacity financially to take a stake in CTP- Furthermore, I believe their SA assets obtained through their agreement with SAPEX is enough to keep them busy for a very long time. It wouldnt surprise me if there is a major chinese interest with proven technology in this sector looking closely at ctp for a possible jv- as a article I posted on here months ago showed that the Chinese governemnt and industries see this as the solution to meeting growing energy demand moving forward-

all in all,positive headways moving forward-dyor as usual as this is not a ramp as many know from my previous posts-just a loyal long term holder of ctp believing in the long term success which will eventuate

the story will unfold, most of us on this thread know the potential, its only a matter of time that others start to take notice and send the volumes to 70-100 million trading days ahead- ATN a classic exaple of how trading volumes can go insane with drilling results- different commodity, not as much prospects as we have- but volume substantially increasing -