oz csg sector timeline, page-13

ucg is cheaper to produce and far more economical in its use of coal...uses only a small fraction of the coal that cbm uses.

linc are in the forefront of this technology and have conducted the most successful trials to date. they are at the cutting edge of the industry and their chinchilla site combined both ucg and ctl. this was a milestone. their trial plant successfully converted ucg to diesel. this is why they are rated so highly by the market. ctl is not new and ucg is being done by others but the combination is unique i believe. others may correct me if i am wrong but this is my understanding of the situation.

i would like to see a jv between ctp and lnc. ctp has none of the overlapping tenement issues faced by cnx, lnc and cxy in queensland and the nt govt is very accommodating with mining ventures. in addition there has been a lot of conflict between cbm interests (notably qgc) and ucg in queensland. ctp has no such conflicts thus far in the northern territory

it has been suggested that part of bg's interest in ctp is to attempt to prevent ctp from going down the ucg path. not surprising since ucg is so much more efficient and economical. if lnc and ctp got together they could really give the cbm mob a run for their money. jh has repeatedly stated his interest in ucg and his admiration for lnc's technology. as i said, i would not be surprised to see a jv between the two.

bear in mind also that lnc has stated it's intention to set up it's plant in south australia on its recently acquired sapex tenements rather than in qld because of the conflict with cbm companies (qgc/bg!).

it would definitely be in both companies interest to team up imho.

btw there is a new lng plant planned for darwin.

cheers