Dukey: CSM gas requires a reasonably specific composition / geological structure of coal; which fortunately is widespread in Queensland (and US / India / China / Pakistan etc). I think AOE has the most of it in Queenland (hence no doubt Shell's interest); and Orion the most in Au, but it is difficult to really be sure given the new reserves estimates of various companies. It is far easier to extract than UGC and is proven technology. It requires less precision than oil well drilling.
UGC has, as I understand it, less specific requirements and thus could be used in more places (ie including the same international places), but the technology is more complex. It is used overseas but really needs a few technological advances to make it more efficient and less environmentally unfriendly (hence Mee / Cxy / CSIRO efforts). It also requires more effort to lead to production.
There is, from a government report I read about 2002 - 2004, about 100,000 pj of suitable coal for both in Au (and probably far more 1, 2 and 3 p since then) so both will have sufficient reserves for many many years.
Not sure of how effective trying to use ex CSM coal for UCG is. I would be interested in any reply.
I disclose holdings in AOE and CXY.
Hi
As a retiree I am less interested in more speculative stocks. That is, I'd rather invest in a more estabished CSM company which is likely to experience moderate growth than a more exploratory company which might enjoy more spectacular growth - or loss.
My impression is that ORG, AOE and QGC [STO?] might best suit my situation.
Comments, even if I am way off beam, would be appreciated.
Thanks
Rick
Hi
I suspect the question which follows is too simplistic an approach to the topic. Please tell me if this is the case.
Is it possible to rank the major CSM players in Australia in terms of:
- Tenemant / acreage size;
- Level of proven and probable accessible reserves; and
- Suitability of coal for CSM extraction?
As a retiree I am less interested in more speculative stocks. That is, I'd rather invest in a more estabished CSM company which is likely to experience moderate growth than a more exploratory company which might enjoy more spectacular growth - or loss.
My impression is that ORG, AOE and QGC [STO?] might best suit my situation.
Comments, even if I am way off beam, would be appreciated.
Thanks
Rick
Many thanks Nioka and Dukey.
Yes, the website gave comparitive tables - thanks - and did not include ORG or STO.
The tables indicated with respect to the companies listed that QGC, AOE and SHG have the biggest 1P and 2P reserves by a big margin - especially the first 2 of these companies.
Any further info on where
- ORG and STO fit into the picture; and
- the appropriateness [type of coal] and accessibilty of the reserves
would be welcome.
Again, the comments already offered are greatly appreciated.
Rick
There is another table in a recent announcement by BLU - Blue energy (see my post in the BLU thread) - giving tenement areas - as opposed to p, pp, ppp resources - surprisingly QGC has low acreage but v. high quality tenements. (BU has big tenement areas, but unproven quality).
STO and ORG both have bigger acreages and reserves (I think) than AOE or QGC or any one else. Though the partnerships/farm-ins are hard to work out.
I think QGC have charged ahead bec. they hit the sweet spot in their tenements and have progressed very quickly to market - smart deals etc. Eventually I would expect them to go hunting for more area - which may have been evident in the tilt at ORG by BG (QGC's new partner).
... so where will they go hunting next??? a question we would all like to know the answer to!!!
Aahhh.. I just typed an answer to this and hit delete instead of submit!
Thanks Dukey - I checked this other link. From that [where again STO and ORG get little mention] QGL has the largest market cap and AOE the largest area.
How to choose?
QGL for smarter management?
AOE for the potential of the area they control?
STO for diversity?
Or buy 10 shares of each and go fishing?
Thought: Have WPL any prospect / opportunity of getting into CSM? If it's an area of such growth are they going to leave it aside?
Thanks again.
Rick
Hi
I'd rather invest in a more estabished CSM company which is likely to experience moderate growth than a more exploratory company which might enjoy more spectacular growth - or loss.
My impression is that ORG, AOE and QGC [STO?] might best suit my situation.
Col, Col,
I like the look of both OIP and BLU..own them both. Both good location and potential reserves. OIP has cash.. was a disappointing first Well but more to come and at this price have upside.
Have owned SXP and AOE and sold at profit.. would have been my favs if hadn't sold so cheap
Definite fav is now BOW. They have proven CSG and more wells to come. Should be over $1 shortly.
great thread guys!! thanks for the list
A small town on Queensland’s coast, near the state’s massive coal basin, will soon become the backbone of the coal-seam gas industry.
Tens of thousands of coal gas wells are in the planning stages and one Aussie company is poised to profit from all of this drilling.
OZ Minerals cashed up, eyes energy prospects
Kate Haycock
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
THE reborn OZ Minerals could have around $A4 billion in cash and debt to spend on empire building, and is looking for energy projects such as coal seam gas.
News reports today have suggested the Oxiana and Zinifex union – which has adopted the patriotic name of OZ Minerals, to be ratified by a shareholder meeting later this month – could be looking to spend around $A4 billion on acquisitions.
Current Zinifex chief executive and soon-to-be OZ chief Andrew Michelmore told the Australian Financial Review the company could potentially add $3 billion in debt to current cash reserves of around $1.2 billion.
These funds could go towards projects in Australia and around the world.
Michelmore also suggested the company could be looking at coal seam gas assets in Queensland or other coal opportunities overseas, according to a report in the Australian.
Thought I would post this information from Richard Cottee (MD Queensland Gas) about what to look for when investing in the industry.
1. Gas content - need to be 3 cubic metres per tonne or higher (I think QGC range from 3 - 9 on their drilling).
2. Permeability - measured in Millidarcies. Average is 50 (now I didn't read that in his document, I seem to think that was average of commercial wells). Richard mentions 10.
3. Gas Saturation - the higher the better obviously. High 90%'s is good.
4. Coal depths - generally 200m to 800m depth for coal seam gas. Gas can be up to 1000m, but must be highly permeable at these depths. eg ESG are deep, up to 1000m, but are higly permeable, and do have seams shallower on the way down.
5. Coal seam thickness - one would think the thicker the better. QGC and PES are finding good thickness, some 25 - 30 metres of seams. However, if it is thick, but not permeable, one can get more gas out of thinner, but more permeable. (QGC and PES drills are highly permeable so far)
6. Type of coal - eg coking coal is high in gas, however, as it has very low permeability, it cannot be extracted in most cases. Brown coals may be better for coal seam gas as more permeable.
7. Just because a company has gas-in-place, does not mean you can extract it. It can be mind boggling when looking at gas-in-place figures, but of no value if you can't get it up out of the ground.
Please feel free to add comments, or tell me if you think I am in error somewhere.
Here is Cottee's interview, and you'll find how to invest down the bottem section of the interview.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...TERROGATION-Richard-Cottee-FS75W?OpenDocument
Sorry, just one more thing, unbelievably good gas flows are 1million cubic feet per day. eg Berwydale South #18 initially flowed at 2.3million cubic feet per day and stabilised around 2 million! 1 million is considered fantastic in my books though.
2. Permeability - measured in Millidarcies. Average is 50 (now I didn't read that in his document, I seem to think that was average of commercial wells). Richard mentions 10.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?