A bit briefer tonight because I need only reiterate some of last nights post.
Economies of scale apparently stack up for ucg because of a characteristic of low capex and opex ... refer to my previous post and/or wait for Factfinder to post the article he was referring to.
The 830PJ comparison is mine (refer to a series of my posts a few weeks back) based on energy eqivalencies. You just wouldnt normally discuss a ucg in terms of a 1P, 2P or 3P reserve imo because the calculation is incredibly simple ... its just the volume of coal in your project area x its calorific content x the expected % utilisation of that coal, all converted to PJ ... gas reserves on the other hand are more complicated and depend on contents, permeability, rock mass properties and more.
I say establishing and operating a ucg project is at least in the same ball park as establishing and operating a multi well lateral offtake CBM well field, and possibly less. You say its not. I am open to comments from others.
You may be right regarding syngas preparation ... and I would guess this is where Ergo Exergy gets involved ... but I figure its ho hum stuff given that there are active projects in South Africa, China and Russia that I know of and projects in various stages of planning in India, Pakistan, Australia and I am presuming America.
When I said that I think CXY will derive its cash flow from supplying syngas to a partner power station project within their ucg project, I meant exactly that. I would think there are players around like ORG or ENE or similar who would consider constructing and operating a 400MW to say 800MW generating plant right next to a 30 year supply of economical gas. CXY arent constrained to be located near an existing power station and they neednt be burdened with constructing or operating it imo.
Cheers Poyndexter
CXY Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
