>>>>>have to disagree with the emotional sentiment that this is a life and death struggle etc.; if it was, there would/will be quicker ways to achieve it.
the barrel of the gun seems to have been the arbiter of most disputes over resources.
>>>>>in fact the world is not running out of oil. there are plenty of resources - at least for next half-century; the real question is which of these resources will be economically attractive and technically feasible to recover.
when you are standing on everest without an oxygen tank you can say there is no oxygen. yep, agree, lots of oil 20,000 metres under the seas of japan etc
>>>>>that's why we've seen a massive increase in investment in Canadian tar sands; and more to come on heavy crude oils; and more evaluation of EOR projects; biomass/biofuels etc. and others like deep water offshore oil or gas from the arctic; the list is quite long in fact and includes gas to liquids and coal to liquids
yep
>>>>>>Now UCG may be an attractive option.
oh yes if it works i am sure it will be. come to think of it, for some places in the world it has been for the last 60 years as far as i am aware
>>>>>But for widespread use it will have to be as good or better than the alternatives;
good or better economically? hmm. let me see. a barrel of oil for $30 selling for $145. yep. as an investor that seems to me much better than the alternative.
as for the consumer, they want to source energy first, and at a competitive price second. i dont think china care much which alternative if it is the same product, on guaranteed supply at a good price
>>>>hence the question I posed on how many wells will be required. Sure this is not the only aspect; but its one of them as it is an indicator of the operational costs and complexity.
yes, agree i understood you point re number of wells
>>>>>>I suspect the problem is not drilling but as I mentioned originally how to manage and control a field of so many wells (think reactors in reality rather than oil wells).
true. and like water the govt are going to build desal plants, dams, etc. float a 70 x 20 x 650 metre bag of water over from new zealand. whatever it takes
if it is simply a matter of technological capability, i am sure they can fix the problem.
>>>>>>Granted, there's lots of wells in Texas but these are (mostly) conventional wells; UCG requires controlling a burning process underground so the management aspect is far more complex. In such a situation you would consider to modularise the system; in this case that would mean having a network of UCG-units connected to some large downstream processing unit; sure that may be feasible at some point in time; but then you need to wonder - how long will it take to work out how to do it properly? will it be economically better than the alternatives?
good points. but at $35bbl, oh yeah, i'm sure the best minds will go to work on it.
>>>>>Now its easy to do the sums to show how much profit you'll make in a year if you just plug in some round numbers;
like $25 a barrel selling for $145...in todays money!
>>>>>But those are all built on assumptions of how the system operates and that it will operate satisfactorily; the number of UCG reactors (ie injection/production well pairs) is also easy to calculate and I've done it. And it also happens that there's no other GTL process that operates with so many reactors.
which brings me back to the original response, what, you think linc havent thought of this? and all their engineers, and the SASOL experience, and the Yergostaz experience, but no-one has thought it through yet? i find this very hard to believe.
>>>>>well I guess LNC can do the calcs I've done too; obviously they think its feasible; but also obviously, as they are currently the only ones in the world doing this, they are rather alone; wouldn't you think if it was such a sure thing as you portray, others would also be jumping on the bandwagon?
ah you defeatest. does the penchant for trial innovation and invention run in the family?
actually that argument is pathetic. can i give a very "pg" rated example would you suggest a friend not to marry his fiance because she was single? i mean come one, if she were any good then someone would have married her. right
taken further you explained """".....increase in investment in Canadian tar sands; heavy crude oils; and more evaluation of EOR projects; biomass/biofuels etc. and others like deep water offshore oil or gas from the arctic; the list is quite long in fact and includes gas to liquids and coal to liquids...."""
what, they are allowed to innovate, but because there isnt a long list for CTL it mustnt be worth it?
last time i checked UCG is real. SASOL is real, Yergostaz is real.
>>>>>it will be interesting to find out how this goes - and to partially answer the earlier questions about my interest/intentions - that's actually the main reason I hold some stock; perhaps it will make us rich? but I'm not betting my life-savings on it.
and who would? if you can diversify your investment portfolio then why can't linc be a part of a diversified energy approach. do you invest in anything that was created or developed in the 20th century? you know. telco, banking, logistics? internet? what about new stuff?
LNC Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
