luckybas.ESI is on the short list QED.Which other techs should...

luckybas.

ESI is on the short list QED.

Which other techs should disclose publicly ?

This is worth a ponder from the forum back benchers imo.


Exergen have published in their public cash raising flyer a prognostic chart containing a series of proposed timelines.

A bar on that chart simply stating ''ALDP'' has been filled in from Aug 2012 to Dec 2013.

This surely implies that they have informed the public of their intent to apply for ALDP funding ?

Considering any ALDP decision would have been made wrt exergen, and taking into account, this is a public cash raising flyer, you would have to consider that exergen has an obligation to disclose to its potential & initial cash offering public an ALDP status update, as their flyer would now appear to be out of date imo, and requires updating if it is to remain a current advertisement for the Tazzy / BM proposal. Has the flyer omitted site location proposals for their proposed demo plant for any specific reason also ?

I take into account that exergen CSI's have only staked up 20 mil of their own $$$ between all 4 of them, and would appear reluctant to throw the 100 mil at a project that so far has not built a geodynamic representation of it's 4 tonne per hour Tasmanian based ''pilot'' plant,and that the flyer concentrates its wording significantly wrt BM project, then as the esi nay sayers would put it,,, something just does not ad up imo.

If exergen's chtd is such a commercially viable tech,,, then why would its old CSI's not want the lion's share of the profits ?

Monash IMFA certainly seem to want as much of the Coldry pie as they can negotiate ?

This is worth pondering if we are to be open to logic reasoning imo.