RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Natural gas burnersVale.com says that they are on positive balance due to the much lower cost of nat gas vs liquid fuel. Dont forget that they negociated a price for 5 years for ALL their plants. Also, Brazil is not too hot on carbon tax. (;-)) ... The higher capital cost of plasma units is not the real killer. Its the exorbitant maintenance costs to be able to operate continuously years after years...in qualified people time and in special toch replacement parts. NOTHING,,,NOTHING,,, can be more critical to BF and DR steel plants than stable quality iron ore pellets.... Dont mess with their production... ( Which PYR was the first to evaluate to...billions ( MM$) for the...eternity (20 yrs NPV estimations. You would think that it should be easy to get this info from the seller...isn't ? Yes darling...I am back to the garden...chut..
Winston123 wrote: Quick check in here at lunch. I see you folks twisted my question. Try to stay focused fellas. How much will iron ore producers pay in carbon tax AFTER they install plasma torches vs natural gas burners?
Of course plasma torches are expensive. It's like comparing a Tesla to a k car. That's why we own shares of PYR, because they can potentially make a lot of money.
No time to look up numbers but I think it'll be somewhere around $70 tax per tonne of co2 emitted.
569 tonne of co2 per day x $70
$40,000 carbon tax for 30 gas burners. OUCH. Day after day.
0$. Carbon tax for plasma burners
I'll try check in again tonight
cheers