- Joined
- 11 January 2007
- Posts
- 791
- Reactions
- 1
As i suggested, looks like a pi$$ing contest between QGC and LNC.
Either way the market is hard enough at the moment without this sort of carrying on.
LNC - Linc Energy
- Thread starter noirua
- Start date
-
- Tags
- linc energy lnc
As i suggested, looks like a pi$$ing contest between QGC and LNC.
Either way the market is hard enough at the moment without this sort of carrying on.
Doesn't surprise me. I thought we would be in for that sought of annoyance. After all, who runs QGC? Was it a reformed lawyer, or is he just getting his boots repolished now?
Disclosure: holding both.
I'm still a firm believer until the minute that Linc tell me the technology won't work, and I do not think that will be the case.
As for some negative publicity....both State and Federal governments are very supportive of both industries (CSG and CTL), so I don't see any problem. Environmental issues - could see CSG with more, but that's just my opinion.
My issue with CSG is using up all of that water underground, and then what? Some other industries rely on that underground water being there. However, my portfolio is heavily weighted in CSG and in Linc, so at the expense of a few, the government will reap big rewards, and so will shareholders. Who will win?
prawn_86
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
Why will you be rewarded Ggecko?
What if something does not go to plan? Or their investments go up the proverbial creek?
Some more detail would be nice please.
What if something does not go to plan? Or their investments go up the proverbial creek?
Some more detail would be nice please.
- Joined
- 23 September 2007
- Posts
- 454
- Reactions
- 0
Geeze... I bought into this company due the ramp that the Daily Reckoning gave... but I'm having doubts...
With muddied waters about legal actions, etc... sounds complicated, drawn out and a (high??) risk speculative stock.
Tell me again, why is this such a good stock to own? Should have closed out on the last rally, and perhaps buy in again at a lower price - if it's as good as the DR thinks they are... I'd be interested in what the DR people are saying about this stock now.
Just curious... for you investors... at what stage would you consider pulling the pin? How low would you allow it to go before declaring this stock to be too troublesome to own?
With muddied waters about legal actions, etc... sounds complicated, drawn out and a (high??) risk speculative stock.
Tell me again, why is this such a good stock to own? Should have closed out on the last rally, and perhaps buy in again at a lower price - if it's as good as the DR thinks they are... I'd be interested in what the DR people are saying about this stock now.
Just curious... for you investors... at what stage would you consider pulling the pin? How low would you allow it to go before declaring this stock to be too troublesome to own?
In reply to prawn_86, as a shareholder, I have watched the growth of this company for a few years and having read all the ASX announcements, including Bonds’ response today, analysed all the material on the company during this time from the internet, newspapers, magazines and their own website and by listening to advisors, it becomes clear that they rarely put a foot wrong. As you would expect with any venture of this size, occasionally milestones are not reached on time but you know they will be reached. From the above information types you come to realise that the staff know exactly what they are doing and are in it for the long haul because like Bond they know what that light is at the end of the tunnel. Sure there are going to be few bumps and ‘nay sayers’ along the way.
I don't own shares in the company or any other UGC orientated company but after reading todays Daily Reckoning you would have to ask, is it worth the risk, in view of the alleged release from the Office of Queensland Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson as saying, the Queensland Government has,
"no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years".
That's not what I want to read as a potential investor, that's for sure.
"no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years".
That's not what I want to read as a potential investor, that's for sure.
Originally posted by Czech
Welcome to ASF Czech and your first post! I don't know how long you have been a subscriber to the Daily Reckoning but perhaps you could go through a few past issues where Denning describes LNC as 'The Black Leaf Gold Project' and informs his followers how rich this company will make them. I think he even throws in a set of steak knives!!
Given that you are quoting 'The Daily Reckoning' it would be interesting for ASF members to be privy to the content of the article you refer to.
Regards COLB
Welcome to ASF Czech and your first post! I don't know how long you have been a subscriber to the Daily Reckoning but perhaps you could go through a few past issues where Denning describes LNC as 'The Black Leaf Gold Project' and informs his followers how rich this company will make them. I think he even throws in a set of steak knives!!
Given that you are quoting 'The Daily Reckoning' it would be interesting for ASF members to be privy to the content of the article you refer to.
Regards COLB
- Joined
- 22 April 2008
- Posts
- 5
- Reactions
- 0
Here you go ColB,
Has the government in Queensland quietly chosen a coal-seam-methane (CSM) future over underground coal gasification (UGC)? It looks that way, at least according to an article in today's Australian. The article quotes an unnamed official in the office of Queensland Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson as saying, the Queensland government has, "no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years".
We chased up the reporter in the story to see where the quote came from. She produced a Microsoft Word document provided to her by a media spokesperson in the Department of Mines and Energy. The document compiles the various positions from the multiple government parties involved in the whole process.
Under a section titled "Advice from the Office of the Minister for Mines and Energy," it reads:
"The Department of Mines and Energy has no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years. Underground coal gasification is a new technology, untried in Australian conditions, and it poses some potential problems, especially with groundwater systems. We will only do what's best for Queensland. In this case, we don't believe it's in the best interests of Queensland to grant production tenures for technology that is untried. It would have to meet the most stringent environmental standards."
To our knowledge, this is the first time the Department has made any of those views public, if indeed those are the views of the Department. We phoned them up to verify the documents authenticity, and to determine whether "Advice" meant a tentative position or a policy position. So far, our call hasn't been returned. We'll report back tomorrow when we know more.
If Queensland has chosen CSM over UGC for the reasons listed above, well it would seem like an odd decision, given that UGC is not a new technology and hasn't posed any problems to groundwater in its trial phases. A behind-the-scenes policy decision would be news to us (and to a certain UGC aspirant in Queensland that we've tipped to readers of our small-cap newsletter).
In the meantime, you get the feeling that Aussie governments (at the State and Federal level) are almost looking for a way to derail the boom. The Emissions Trading Scheme, for example, appears to be a way that holier-than-thou bureaucrats can feel good about themselves by imposing costs on Australian business that will make them uncompetitive with their global peers.
Hey, if you want to take a position on climate change that makes you feel morally superior to your neighbours, go for it. But when you start making policy that has a real affect on jobs and economic competitiveness, your moral self-righteousness suddenly becomes a lot less eccentric and a lot more damaging.
The truth of the matter is that aside from the warm and fuzzy feeling it might bring people about "doing the right thing", Australia's voluntary reductions in carbon emissions won't make one whit of difference to anyone, and certainly not the planet. Not when China and India and the U.S. are not on board. Watch the coverage of the Olympics and then let us know if you think China-with its 1.2 billion industrialising new capitalists-will follow Australia's moral leadership...or continue its breakneck economic ascendancy that requires full employment and continuous growth.
Not that you shouldn't do the right thing. You should. But in this case, perhaps the right thing is finding non-hydrocarbon sources of energy. That might mean seriously considering nuclear power, which of course goes against the secular orthodoxy of the "global warming" position.
That "the right thing" might come from the marketplace of business experiments to solve the problem does not occur to policy makers (who love making rules to tell you how to live your life). It also tells you that the real motive of policy makers isn't to "save the planet" at all. It's to get ever more involved with aspect of private life so they can regulate, tax, and punish.
Obey.
That's Dan's brief synopsis in todays DR email.
As for the article in today's Australian where do I begin.. It would have to be one of the most irresponsible articles I've seen in a long time and certainly reduced the combined market cap of the three main UCG plays on the ASX.
I'm not sure if the forum members here are aware of this but it was revealed on the HC Forum that the article's author, Lenora Taylor, ran as a Greens candidate in 2004 in the seat of Moggill. Frankly those Green credentials should have been disclosed in the article allowing readers to understand her personal feelings toward UCG and CTL. Instead the article is disguised as a piece of "impartial journalism".
As far as the quote "has no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years", I would suggest this to be extremely market sensitive information and if it is truly the position of the department then it should have been disclosed to all UCG players far sooner than this. To be disclosed by some unknown spokeswoman borders on the outrageous. In my opinion they should find out who she is and carve her a new one.
Has the government in Queensland quietly chosen a coal-seam-methane (CSM) future over underground coal gasification (UGC)? It looks that way, at least according to an article in today's Australian. The article quotes an unnamed official in the office of Queensland Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson as saying, the Queensland government has, "no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years".
We chased up the reporter in the story to see where the quote came from. She produced a Microsoft Word document provided to her by a media spokesperson in the Department of Mines and Energy. The document compiles the various positions from the multiple government parties involved in the whole process.
Under a section titled "Advice from the Office of the Minister for Mines and Energy," it reads:
"The Department of Mines and Energy has no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years. Underground coal gasification is a new technology, untried in Australian conditions, and it poses some potential problems, especially with groundwater systems. We will only do what's best for Queensland. In this case, we don't believe it's in the best interests of Queensland to grant production tenures for technology that is untried. It would have to meet the most stringent environmental standards."
To our knowledge, this is the first time the Department has made any of those views public, if indeed those are the views of the Department. We phoned them up to verify the documents authenticity, and to determine whether "Advice" meant a tentative position or a policy position. So far, our call hasn't been returned. We'll report back tomorrow when we know more.
If Queensland has chosen CSM over UGC for the reasons listed above, well it would seem like an odd decision, given that UGC is not a new technology and hasn't posed any problems to groundwater in its trial phases. A behind-the-scenes policy decision would be news to us (and to a certain UGC aspirant in Queensland that we've tipped to readers of our small-cap newsletter).
In the meantime, you get the feeling that Aussie governments (at the State and Federal level) are almost looking for a way to derail the boom. The Emissions Trading Scheme, for example, appears to be a way that holier-than-thou bureaucrats can feel good about themselves by imposing costs on Australian business that will make them uncompetitive with their global peers.
Hey, if you want to take a position on climate change that makes you feel morally superior to your neighbours, go for it. But when you start making policy that has a real affect on jobs and economic competitiveness, your moral self-righteousness suddenly becomes a lot less eccentric and a lot more damaging.
The truth of the matter is that aside from the warm and fuzzy feeling it might bring people about "doing the right thing", Australia's voluntary reductions in carbon emissions won't make one whit of difference to anyone, and certainly not the planet. Not when China and India and the U.S. are not on board. Watch the coverage of the Olympics and then let us know if you think China-with its 1.2 billion industrialising new capitalists-will follow Australia's moral leadership...or continue its breakneck economic ascendancy that requires full employment and continuous growth.
Not that you shouldn't do the right thing. You should. But in this case, perhaps the right thing is finding non-hydrocarbon sources of energy. That might mean seriously considering nuclear power, which of course goes against the secular orthodoxy of the "global warming" position.
That "the right thing" might come from the marketplace of business experiments to solve the problem does not occur to policy makers (who love making rules to tell you how to live your life). It also tells you that the real motive of policy makers isn't to "save the planet" at all. It's to get ever more involved with aspect of private life so they can regulate, tax, and punish.
Obey.
That's Dan's brief synopsis in todays DR email.
As for the article in today's Australian where do I begin.. It would have to be one of the most irresponsible articles I've seen in a long time and certainly reduced the combined market cap of the three main UCG plays on the ASX.
I'm not sure if the forum members here are aware of this but it was revealed on the HC Forum that the article's author, Lenora Taylor, ran as a Greens candidate in 2004 in the seat of Moggill. Frankly those Green credentials should have been disclosed in the article allowing readers to understand her personal feelings toward UCG and CTL. Instead the article is disguised as a piece of "impartial journalism".
As far as the quote "has no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years", I would suggest this to be extremely market sensitive information and if it is truly the position of the department then it should have been disclosed to all UCG players far sooner than this. To be disclosed by some unknown spokeswoman borders on the outrageous. In my opinion they should find out who she is and carve her a new one.
Daily Reckoning will be following up the basis to that leakage from the department as to the validity of it. Here is their commentary today.
Mmmm very interesting - I'm not a linc holder - but a close watcher...
A couple of things to note... The information supposedly from the ministers office is not dated... ie. it could be X years old, and stating a historical position.
Personally I'd think this journo is ****-stirring. I'm sure Qld EPA will be circling and will have strict guidelines to enforce for UCG as they should... it's their job.... - but equally other dept's will be keen to get UCG happening for the potential benefits it will bring to sunny qld... If the UCG companies can provide the necessary environmental assurances then I'd expect the approvals to come.... and anyway, there MUST have been some kind of approvals needed for the initial trial burn at chinchilla ... must there not??
-D
A couple of things to note... The information supposedly from the ministers office is not dated... ie. it could be X years old, and stating a historical position.
Personally I'd think this journo is ****-stirring. I'm sure Qld EPA will be circling and will have strict guidelines to enforce for UCG as they should... it's their job.... - but equally other dept's will be keen to get UCG happening for the potential benefits it will bring to sunny qld... If the UCG companies can provide the necessary environmental assurances then I'd expect the approvals to come.... and anyway, there MUST have been some kind of approvals needed for the initial trial burn at chinchilla ... must there not??
-D
- Joined
- 25 September 2007
- Posts
- 1,712
- Reactions
- 13
if the SP fall is mainly on a dodgy newspaper report, then u would really have to expect a rebound soon rather than later...ie tommorow
as i alluded to earliear CNX SP got slaughtered, as well, similar situation.
looking at the long term potential, tho that attracted me.
produce deisel and kerosine at $25-30 p barrel
there is presently no viable alternative to jet fuel ( kero)
i suppose it depends on what people think will be oil price trend
i do not believe oil price will go below $100 for any length of time
except of course in the event of a major recession.
if it gets that bad, recession wise, the price of Linc shares will be the least of our worries.
still holding
as i alluded to earliear CNX SP got slaughtered, as well, similar situation.
looking at the long term potential, tho that attracted me.
produce deisel and kerosine at $25-30 p barrel
there is presently no viable alternative to jet fuel ( kero)
i suppose it depends on what people think will be oil price trend
i do not believe oil price will go below $100 for any length of time
except of course in the event of a major recession.
if it gets that bad, recession wise, the price of Linc shares will be the least of our worries.
still holding
- Joined
- 1 June 2007
- Posts
- 173
- Reactions
- 0
Lenora Taylor didn't get added to the share register yesterday ..................................................did she.
- Joined
- 22 April 2008
- Posts
- 5
- Reactions
- 0
Do you mean she orchestrated a buy in price because she was too cheap to over three bucks?
Here's the latest from the Australian today. Note it is by a different author.
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24144945-5005200,00.html - 9 hours ago -
"Linc Energy shares rally after early plunge
Andrew Fraser | August 08, 2008
THE Queensland Government last night backed away from a statement claiming that it would not issue any new licences for underground coal gasification technology for three years -- but not before the share prices of the two main companies operating in the area dropped dramatically.
A statement to The Australian on Wednesday from Queensland Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson said the department "has no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years".
After this statement appeared in yesterday's edition of The Australian, the share price of Linc Energy, the main company in the field, dropped immediately from an opening of $3.38 to $2.82.
But when Linc Energy issued a statement to the market at 10.20am in which it denied that the Queensland Government had made such an announcement, its price rallied slightly to close at $2.93.
This respresented a drop of just under 13 per cent during the day, or a loss of about $150 million of value in the company.
Perth-based Carbon Energy, which also has interests in underground coal gasification, had an even more dramatic drop, closing at 37c, a drop of 35 per cent during the day.
Mr Wilson issued a statement late yesterday in which there was no mention of a three-year moratorium, and he would only say that the Queensland Government "would only do what was best for Queensland in relation to underground coal gasification technology on trial in the state".
He said the Queensland Government would not grant production tenures for any technology that was untried and untested in Australian conditions.
"These projects are in a pilot phase which is why they have a conditional tenure and that gives no automatic right to a production tenure at a later point," he said.
"We're not about to give the green light to underground coal gasification projects, especially where any of them may affect the Great Artesian Basin, unless we're convinced it's in the best interests of Queensland."
The Queensland Government made its statement as a court battle continued between Linc Energy and coal seam methane gas producers Queensland Gas concerning access to coal-rich fields in the Surat Basin west of Brisbane.
Linc Energy has tenements over land near Chinchilla, where it has a pilot plant burning coal underground using technology that originally came out of the Soviet Union.
But while it has these tenements under the Minerals and Resources Act, Queensland Gas has tenements over the same land under the Petroleum and Natural Gas act.
This case, in the Queensland Supreme Court, has been continuing this week.
While multiple tenements have existed before, the main issue in this instance is that production of coal seam methane and underground coal gasification technology are broadly incompatible, because the latter involves burning the former."
As previous posts have stated Lenore appears to have a bias against the industry. There may also be a case for the ASX to investigate her.
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24144945-5005200,00.html - 9 hours ago -
"Linc Energy shares rally after early plunge
Andrew Fraser | August 08, 2008
THE Queensland Government last night backed away from a statement claiming that it would not issue any new licences for underground coal gasification technology for three years -- but not before the share prices of the two main companies operating in the area dropped dramatically.
A statement to The Australian on Wednesday from Queensland Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson said the department "has no intention of granting production tenures for underground coal gasification for at least three years".
After this statement appeared in yesterday's edition of The Australian, the share price of Linc Energy, the main company in the field, dropped immediately from an opening of $3.38 to $2.82.
But when Linc Energy issued a statement to the market at 10.20am in which it denied that the Queensland Government had made such an announcement, its price rallied slightly to close at $2.93.
This respresented a drop of just under 13 per cent during the day, or a loss of about $150 million of value in the company.
Perth-based Carbon Energy, which also has interests in underground coal gasification, had an even more dramatic drop, closing at 37c, a drop of 35 per cent during the day.
Mr Wilson issued a statement late yesterday in which there was no mention of a three-year moratorium, and he would only say that the Queensland Government "would only do what was best for Queensland in relation to underground coal gasification technology on trial in the state".
He said the Queensland Government would not grant production tenures for any technology that was untried and untested in Australian conditions.
"These projects are in a pilot phase which is why they have a conditional tenure and that gives no automatic right to a production tenure at a later point," he said.
"We're not about to give the green light to underground coal gasification projects, especially where any of them may affect the Great Artesian Basin, unless we're convinced it's in the best interests of Queensland."
The Queensland Government made its statement as a court battle continued between Linc Energy and coal seam methane gas producers Queensland Gas concerning access to coal-rich fields in the Surat Basin west of Brisbane.
Linc Energy has tenements over land near Chinchilla, where it has a pilot plant burning coal underground using technology that originally came out of the Soviet Union.
But while it has these tenements under the Minerals and Resources Act, Queensland Gas has tenements over the same land under the Petroleum and Natural Gas act.
This case, in the Queensland Supreme Court, has been continuing this week.
While multiple tenements have existed before, the main issue in this instance is that production of coal seam methane and underground coal gasification technology are broadly incompatible, because the latter involves burning the former."
As previous posts have stated Lenore appears to have a bias against the industry. There may also be a case for the ASX to investigate her.
- Joined
- 25 September 2007
- Posts
- 1,712
- Reactions
- 13
LNC has bounced rapidly to $3.22 at 11.05am
CNX still heading down tho
i would like to kick those journos in the c#^* , even tho they r probably just doing their jobs without any bias at all.
CNX still heading down tho
i would like to kick those journos in the c#^* , even tho they r probably just doing their jobs without any bias at all.
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Go Mojohand and ColB. The information on Lenore Taylor's background puts her opinions into perspective. I thought it was interesting that she used an old quote from Christine Milne who is anti UCG rather than one from Martin Ferguson who is optimistic on UCG.
