Just one man's opinion here, but....
I believe "holding pattern" describes the fact that there is no visible, outward sign of progress, either positive or negative. I take my guidance from the recent RNTK press release on the subject: biz.yahoo.com
Although terse, this release to me confirms that things are trundling along "normally" as far as the negotiations are concerned. Also, having been this outgoing with that release, I suspect that RNTK would be required to publicly alert the investment community if something had gone awry.
Why are we in such a status? Because great things take a while and big companies move with glacial speed. Many layers of management. Many layers of legal types. Other management, legal, and market-related concerns totally unrelated to what is to Texaco a relatively small joint venture agreement.
I note that the article emphasizes GTL, which lumps RNTK with all the other processes. As I understand it, RNTK's primary competitive advantage is that it works very well using refinery bottoms as the source.
The article errs in another factoid -- the negotiations with Texaco have been going on for a lot longer than "several months".
These two items lead me to wonder just how well-informed the writer may be. And to wonder whether he may have a different perspective (or maybe even vested interest?) in telling the story the way he does.
Re F-T wax, I believe it is important to note that the RNTK process can be optimized to emphasize production of a variety of different products. F-T wax is but one of them. Naphtha and clean-burning diesel fuel are others. Diesel engines have not, up 'til now, been as much the target of the EPA and its equivalents in other countries, but that is changing. Already we are hearing serious rumblings about cleaning up the diesel-based internal combustion process.
Lastly, if we consider Texaco's apparent planned utilization of the RNTK process ... cleaning up refinery bottoms ... we need to understand what Texaco *currently* does with its refinery bottoms and how expensive that may be. In other words, let's run a computation of RNTK's value to Texaco not as a source of "too much" wax, but as a *replacement for their current net cost* of dealing with refinery bottoms.
(Taken to an *extreme,* any process which reduces a higher cost process pays for itself over time, and the output product is free.)
Sadly I do not know the answer to that question.
JSb. |
