Well Dex, then in the interest of engaging in some engaged...

Well Dex, then in the interest of engaging in some engaged feedback on the feeback, here are two references that I sometimes review to get back up to speed on UCG.

The first is from Purdue Uni. Slide 20 paints a good visualisation of the CRIPS method vs the conventional method which. Everything that I have read up on the CRIPS method points to it being developed with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - and as such it does not/cannot have nearly as much operational time as the Ergo method.
Purdue Uni - B. Bowen

The second is the Fire in teh Hole article which is available on the LLNL website and is a good general review of UCG from LLNL perspective.
LLNL - Fire in the Hole article

I am 'attracted' to the Cougar because of their simple approach to the technology development. I have often posted the opinion that I cannot understand why the YouSeeGeeThree have not progressed to the low risk path of electricity generation to commercialise the technology.

Peeling back the fog of time, this was the original path that Len W was pursuing when he was in charge of Linc way back. No need to guess where those dreams went.

Carbon Enegrys change of step during the trial to move for powergen instead of liquids was a validation of this approach and I think it puts the cougar well ahead of both Linc and Carbon in terms of ACTUALLY commercialising the technology.

Certainly very exciting times for the big pussy cat!


Cheers,

SF

PS: No, I still havent got around to 'asking' the UCG brains trust about subsidence issues. I have picked up some info from a site that is trialling in Canada that discuss it as an issue (which you would naturally expect) to be associated with the reactor depth.