GI
I agree with your analysis. My point was only that LNC won't have a monopoly on this if it works; so that means subsequent projects might be more difficult to develop; also I suspect if its succesful in the end you'll have consolidation of the sector to some degree; none of this is necessarily bad for LNC; I was responding to stormboy's comment:
"LNC takes proven ctg,gtl clean affordable tech to the rest of the world. 25% of the worlds population is developing and will reqire huge amounts of energy.the method and timeing should be perfict. it all comes down to LNC being ale to deliver. i wounder what future generations will say about LNC"
Now there is a big difference between LNC and Microsoft; Microsoft has a monopoly market position and IP rights which it defends vigorously; that's the sort of position which would be great to develop in the energy sector and even better if I had a piece of it.
For now I would say LNC should finish what they have started and get the pilot plant running;
Now if PB (or JonF) are reading this here's some free advice:
In long term I'd like to see some IP rights/technology; given they have a lead on others in terms of actual trial burns etc they are in a position to do this and so protect the franchise as long as possible and to add value to their current position. It would also help them make their process better;
The ways to do it are to look at the scalability of this process; I don't think it scales well; maybe a 5000 - 6000 bpd plant is feasible; but larger than that could be a headache; so in parallel with developing the first 6000 bpd plant they could look into testing various methods to improve the scalability - that could include steam/oxygen burning; greater injection rates; etc. perhaps they are planning to do this.
They should also stop the bio-algae R&D and pump that million dollars into their core process; later they can look into carbon capture and storage, preferably with a partner who has experience to bring to the table and with which to share the risks/costs; to reduce CO2 and improve efficiency they could also look at optimising the burn to strip the higher hydrocarbons off the coal at relatively low temperatures to make a H2 rich syngas and leave a carbon rich residue behind. a cheap way to do that would be worth billions IMO, but probably you can only achieve a small incremental improvement - but that will still be worth millions at scale.
By leveraging their current process and experience and optimising it they should be in a good position to increase the value of the Chincilla project and at the same time stay ahead of others; that will mean they will be sought out as a JV partner of choice in other UCG projects;
So becoming the Microsoft for UCG would be a nice vision wouldn't it?
I think LNC see themselves like this, but I don't see the technical side coming through yet.
just my thoughts;
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- LNC
- need educated advice
need educated advice, page-19
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 7 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add LNC (ASX) to my watchlist
Currently unlisted public company.
The Watchlist
FHE
FRONTIER ENERGY LIMITED
Adam Kiley, CEO
Adam Kiley
CEO
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online