NET Power Inc

NYSE:NPWR

Earnings Call Analysis

NET Power Adjusts Project Timeline, Financials Solid

NET Power, facing supply chain challenges, has prudently scheduled a 12-month cushion for its pioneering Project Permian, with initial power generation expected between the second half of 2027 and the first half of 2028. The project aims to serve as a blueprint for future deployments, contributing to state-level decarbonization efforts. With 'OP1', another prospective plant, NET Power has completed the technical feasibility study and is entering the permitting and FEED phase in 2024. Financially, the company is in a strong position, ending Q3 2023 with $645 million in cash and investments. Quarterly capital expenditures were around $3.4 million, with operational cash flow balanced by interest received, ensuring capital sufficiency through Project Permian's commissioning.

Introduction to NET Power's Q3 Earnings

NET Power, represented by CEO Daniel Rice, President and COO Brian Allen, and CFO Akash Patel, shared their Q3 2023 financial results and strategic updates during their earnings call. The information was also made available on their Investor Relations website.

Strategic Pillars and Operational Progress

The company operates on a 3-pillared strategy aimed at providing clean, affordable, and reliable energy. They are dedicated to proving their patented technology at a utility scale and devising a standardized plant design to enhance manufacturing efficiency by the end of the decade. Their technology is set to open significant opportunities, making the success of their first utility scale project crucial for future endeavours.

Advancements in Technology and Preparation for Testing

NET Power is optimizing their process design and preparing the La Porte facility for testing with partner Baker Hughes. These efforts align with their development of a standard utility-scale plant design for Project Permian, their inaugural plant project. The first phase of testing is slated for 2024 and is essential for refining plant controls and de-risking Project Permian.

Project Development and Stakeholder Alignment

The company is aiming to build a project backlog that supports state-level decarbonization. By locating and securing prospective plant sites that are conducive to CO2 sequestration and in regions with favorable economics, NET Power is working to form strategic partnerships and minimize environmental impact. Their first project, labelled OP1, has passed a technical feasibility study, and they are planning to start the permitting and Front-End Engineering and Design (FEED) in 2024.

Financial Standing and Capital Expenditures

NET Power reported a solid balance sheet with about $645 million in cash and short-term investments. Q3 saw capital expenditures of approximately $3.4 million, split between port upgrades and Project Permian costs. The company has been capitalizing on the current interest rate environment to offset corporate expenses, with operational cash flow at a net zero due to $8 million in cash interest offsetting operational costs. This financial health is viewed as an advantage for the company's plans through Project Permian commissioning.

Company's Market Position and Share Count

NET Power highlighted its unique market position, bolstered by its significantly overcapitalized balance sheet, providing a competitive edge within the energy transition sector. They concluded the call by announcing their share count at approximately 247 million fully diluted shares as of September 30.

Earnings Call Transcript 2023-Q3

[Operator]

Greetings, and welcome to the NET Power Third Quarter 2023 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded.

It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Bryce Mendes, Director of Investor Relations. Thank you, Bryce. You may begin.

[Bryce Mendes, executive]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to NET Power's Third Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. With me on the call today, we have our Chief Executive Officer, Daniel Rice, our President and Chief Operating Officer; Brian Allen; and our Chief Financial Officer, Akash Patel.

This morning, we issued our earnings release for the third quarter of 2023, which can be found on our Investor Relations website, along with this presentation at ir.netpower.com.

During this call, our remarks and responses to questions may include forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those stated or implied by forward-looking statements, future risks and uncertainties, associated with our business. These risks and uncertainties are discussed in our SEC filings. Please note that we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements.

With that, I will now pass it over to Danny Rice, NET Power's Chief Executive Officer.

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Thanks, Bryce. Hi, everyone, and welcome to NET Power's Third Quarter 2023 Earnings Call. I'd like to briefly revisit our strategic initiatives, before I turn the call over to Brian for some key operational updates. Our 3-pillared strategy, which we outlined on our inaugural earnings call, serves as a framework to measure our progress towards achieving clean, affordable and reliable energy. As Brian will speak to shortly, we're working towards not only demonstrating our patented technology at the utility scale, but also towards creating a standardized plant design that will allow us to get to manufacturing mode as efficiently as possible by the end of this decade.

Simultaneously, we continue to make great progress towards building out our project pipeline, which I will touch on further in a few minutes. This technology opens an incredible universe of opportunities for us. And our first plant will ultimately set the stage for future deployment and it would be utmost important to get our first one right. We're taking a methodical approach to ensure that this first utility scale project validates the technology while operating with a focus on clean, reliable and safe operations.

NET Power is on a mission to lower the cost of power and lower the emissions from power, without sacrificing reliability. The world is beginning to see that for energy to be sustainable, it needs to be clean, more affordable and more reliable. Natural gas has been proven to be the go-to energy source to meet our reliability and affordability needs, and we need technologies like NET Power to eliminate CO2 emissions in the most cost-effective manner possible.

So with that, I'll pass it over to Brian for some operational updates.

[Brian Allen, executive]

Thanks, Danny. The NET Power team is diligently progressing the development of our technology, which includes several facets. First, we are advancing and optimizing our process design to ensure that we can deliver the energy trifecta. Second, we are preparing and retrofitting our La Porte demonstration facility for upcoming testing campaigns with our partner, Baker Hughes. And third, we are developing our standard utility scale plant design, through our Front-End Engineering and Design or FEED work with Zachry as we progress Project Permian, our first utility scale plant.

As mentioned on our previous earnings call, each of these areas of technology development are linked and are in development, in parallel with the ultimate goal of delivering the energy trifecta at the utility scale.

Slide 5 provides some Q3 updates from our La Porte test facility. We have several site developments underway in preparation for upcoming combustor and turboexpander demonstration test with Baker Hughes. The initial phase of these testing campaigns begins in 2024. These test campaigns will help derisk our first utility-scale project and create further refinement of our plant controls architecture with Baker Hughes equipment. The development at La Porte includes recycled CO2 compressor relocation, piping and instrumentation enhancements to improve data acquisition and distributed control system updates to optimize our plant controls.

Turning to Slide 6. We progressed several important work streams surrounding Project Permian, during the third quarter of 2023. We continue to advance through the FEED process with Zachry, our first prequalified engineering, procurement and construction partner. We completed our initial surveying and environmental assessment of our plant site, continued releasing bid packages for long lead equipment and commenced negotiations of supply and offtake agreements.

During the second quarter of this year, we submitted our grant application for up to $270 million to the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. This process is ongoing with a DOE decision expected in Q4 of 2023. As Danny alluded to, it is critical that we get Project Permian right. Our anticipated project time line is illustrated on the bottom right-hand side of Slide 6.

The global energy supply chain continues to be challenged, which means we are facing extensive lead times across critical components. Our supply chain strategy is intended to alleviate these market constraints in the long term, but we must prudently incorporate the current supply chain realities into our project timing and planning for Permian.

As such, we are incorporating a 12-month cushion into our expected schedule for Project Permian. We're expecting to achieve initial electric power generation, sometime between the second half of 2027 and first half of 2028. We believe this updated schedule will allow us to accomplish safe, clean and reliable operations, and enable this project to serve as the catalyst for all future NET Power plant deployments.

I'll now pass it back to Danny for a few commercial updates.

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Thanks, Brian. Turning to Slide 7. We're actively building out our project backlog with the goal of creating clear pathways to state-level decarbonization by the time our first plant comes online. This process requires careful planning and strong alignment across our stakeholder ecosystem, which is illustrated on the right-hand side of this slide.

Through our origination efforts, we continue to identify highly economic prospective plant locations where the subsurface is conducive to CO2 sequestration, and the electricity transmission network exists above ground in regions with attractive spark spreads. We then form the right partnerships to secure access to these locations, all while ensuring benefits to each and every partner and stakeholder. The ultimate goal is to maximize the energy and social benefit while minimizing NET Power's environmental impact.

Using this all-encompassing approach, we've identified our first originated project, which we're simply calling OP1 for now. This project has completed its technical feasibility study, and we're preparing to commence permitting and FEED in 2024. Over the coming quarters, we're going to build stakeholder support with intent of sharing details of the project, once all key stakeholders are aligned.

I want to reiterate that we're not looking at one-off projects on a bespoke basis but rather creating a road map to future deployments within the same region with the goal of achieving net-zero grids at the state and regional level.

I'll now pass it over to Akash to walk through our Q3 financial results.

[Akash Patel, executive]

Thanks, Danny. Looking at Slide 8, NET Power ended the third quarter of 2023, with a strong balance sheet, including approximately $645 million of cash and short-term investments. For the quarter, our total capital expenditures, excluding short-term investment securities was approximately $3.4 million, comprised of approximately $0.9 million spent on a port upgrades and roughly $2.5 million of capitalized costs associated with the ongoing Project Permian development activities.

Under the current interest rate environment, we are able to benefit from putting our balance sheet cash to work to materially offset our corporate spend. In the third quarter, our cash flow from operations was approximately 0, due to the cash interest received during the quarter of approximately $8 million, offsetting our operational cash burn.

Though we do not expect this trend to continue as we build out the organization and ramp up activity at La Porte, we believe we have sufficient capital through Project Permian commissioning. Our overcapitalized balance sheet provides us with a unique competitive advantage and is a key differentiator for NET Power relative to other energy transition names.

The final slide of this presentation provides the detailed breakdown of the company's fully diluted share count of approximately 247 million shares as of September 30. This is comprised of approximately 211 million Class A and Class B vested shares currently outstanding, 19.5 million shares issued upon the exercise of outstanding public and private warrants, 1.7 million shares subject to earnouts or vesting requirements, and over 14 million authorized shares issuable pursuant to the joint development agreement with Baker Hughes.

That concludes our prepared remarks for this call. We'll now turn it back to the operator to open it up for Q&A.

[Operator]

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Martin Malloy with Johnson Rice.

[Martin Malloy, analyst]

I wanted to ask first about Occidental. And maybe you could speak to your potential participation in their future DAC projects. They spent a lot of time on their conference call talking about the South Texas DAC Hub.

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Yes, Marty, this is Danny. Thanks for joining us today. I can't speak to anything specifically about OXY and carbon engineering and DAC programs specifically. I would say more broadly, when you look at DACs, and DACs is certainly getting a whole lot of attention and a whole lot of capital these days.

I think one of the really interesting things about our solution, as you look at just DACs is, DACs need a lot of power. And I think one of the things that's so interesting about what NET Power can provide is DACs need that power to be low cost. They need that power to be reliable because you have to be running these machines continuously, 24/7, to be able to justify the capital costs of the DAC facilities.

But you also need that power to be clean, right? I think you can't just use grid power. You can't use just straight natural gas from a combined cycle plant, certainly you can't use a coal-fired power plant for that power. And so you're really left with limited, if not zero options on economic and environmental justification for, how are you going to power these DAC facilities? And this isn't specific to OXY. This is specific to every single DAC project across the world. How are you going to get access to low-cost reliable clean power.

And there's really no option out there today in the world. And while I think we always looked at NET Power, as the base case for NET Power is, how are we going into the grid to decarbonize the grid? CO2 going underground. But DAC certainly become a really logical second market for us, where it's power going into powering the DAC. And then you're actually combining our CO2 that's being captured from our plant with the CO2 capture from the DAC plant, so you pick up economies of scale in the CO2 infrastructure and you go to sequester from there.

So there's a whole lot of like really good environmental and economic reasons why NET Power pairs up really, really well with DAC. And so we're really excited to explore those in the future with OXY and with other folks.

[Martin Malloy, analyst]

Great. And for my follow-up question, I just wanted to ask about the building-in of the additional 12-month cushion. Are there specific pieces of equipment that maybe caused you some concern regarding their supply, that caused that cushion to be necessary?

[Brian Allen, executive]

Marty, this is Brian. It's not a specific piece of equipment. It's really just a general issue facing the energy industry right now, as we come out of the post-pandemic period. Just to give you, for instance, a simple thing like a transformer that's I would have viewed in the past as a commodity item. The pre-FEED schedule that we had developed going into this whole program. We had bids few years ago for 1 year for this item. This is the main transformer for the plant. That's looking more like 3 years now.

So electrical gear is definitely a focus area, that in the past, I viewed as more commodities. But it also extends really to everything that long leads in the air separation plant, long leads with a Baker, rotating equipment. So we just felt -- as we looked you can expedite 1 or 2 items, but if you're looking at a general trend in the whole supply chain, we just wanted to update that reality as to our schedule.

[Operator]

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Leo Mariani with ROTH MKM.

[Leo Paul Mariani, analyst]

I was hoping to hear a little bit more about the OP1 project. When you guys talk about this being your first originated project. I presume that's something that kind of NET Power went off and sort of bound on their own. Are there other partners kind of committed to this yet? Or are you still sort of in the process of kind of bringing those partners in? I'm just trying to understand a little bit kind of more about OP1.

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Hey Leo, it's Danny. Good to hear from you again. Yes. I mean it's early days. I think as we kind of alluded to on the call last time, we really talked about being able to really just supplement the primary business model on the commercial side, which is licensing with this origination approach, right? And I think like the whole background on origination for new listeners on the call today, was is we really have started to just map out really the United States, but North America in general.

Like one of the interesting things is, that's really unique to North America, is the power markets where there are sedimentary basins where you can sequester CO2, they're deregulated, which means that anybody can build a power plant and sell power into those grid systems. Anybody, right? And then when you also, especially within the United States, given that property owners on the surface, they own the subsurface, just like in oil and gas, anybody can go lease the subsurface, Anybody can go secure surface rights.

And so we're sitting in a unique position, where when you look at both the surface, the subsurface, in the power markets through the lens of NET Power, you really start to identify these really cool bright spots. And it's bright spots that we're sitting here today saying, what's stopping us from going and originating projects on our own in the best markets where these plants make really, really good economic sense.

And kind of the answer is there's nothing that's really stopping us than the will power and the conviction to go do so. And so that's what mean, the team have been working on for the last few months is really starting to map all this stuff out. And then from identifying these bright spots, actually then turning our attention to how do we go secure these opportunities.

So OP1 is really the first of what will be a lot of these projects. I think we're really looking at these maps in these bright spots in a really unique way that really nobody else is, because there's no technology like this that can really take advantage of those sort of subsurface and surface features.

So, that's kind of like background on how we got to OP1. I think as we think about just talking about details of these projects going forward, and this is just level setting expectations with everybody, but really for the benefit of the shareholders.

I think one of the things that's so important, is really making sure we're very judicious and prudent about being very transparent about all the details of these projects only when the project is fully baked, and fully baked does not mean just we have the subsurface under control, and we have the surface under control, and we're going through the interconnect process. It's -- we have alignment with the local land owners. We have alignment with the communities. We have alignment with the regulatory agencies, both within the state and at the federal level.

And it's -- to part of your question, we have alignment with the local utilities. We have alignment with any other folks that we need to help on the CCUS side, whether it's on CO2 transportation or CO2 sequestration. And so I think when we fully announced like these projects, it's going to be in a place, where we're going to have a whole host of really important stakeholders on our side.

And I think the industry has kind of seen, the CCUS industry specifically, just kind of seeing what happens if you announce projects before they're fully baked, right? I think you put yourself in a position, where you're susceptible to just a lot of opposition. And so I think for us being able to build that support so people really understand the benefit, not just the energy benefit, not just the economic benefit, but just a broader social and environmental benefit to what these projects can do is really, really important to ensure that we're minimizing the roadblocks or potential just derailing of these things between announcement and COD, getting those projects online.

So OP1 is going to be the first of a bunch of projects that we're working on right now. And the goal really for us is by the time that first plant comes online, Project Permian comes online, we're going to have a pretty good backlog of where we want to put plant numbers, 2 through 10, 2 through 30. And really, all of it is really in advance of getting to manufacturing modes that we've continuously be producing dozens of plants per year.

So I would imagine the origination strategy is going to be really just the foundation of that commercial launch point into manufacturing. And really, there's going to be a really cool handoff, we think, from origination into just almost pure licensing by the middle of next decade.

As the utilities really start to understand, this is the playbook. This is how you develop that power plants. Here's how you operate in that power plants. Here's how you build the community benefits piece. I think it's really up to us to be able to demonstrate the optimal way to deploy these plants, and this origination strategy is going to be a key part of making that happen.

[Leo Paul Mariani, analyst]

Okay. Very thorough answer for sure here, Danny. I mean, it certainly sounds like, to paraphrase a little bit, it's a bit early days, and there's probably still a lot that kind of needs to happen to get all the right kind of stakeholders and investing partners sort of have been in place here, but it sounds like you guys are well on your way and working on a lot of that.

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Yes, that's right. The key piece is these are going to be economic and socially beneficial projects, that folks want to be a part of. That's not what we have control over, yes.

[Leo Paul Mariani, analyst]

Okay. And then just a question on kind of the financials here. I know it's always a little tricky to kind of predict things going forward. But as I'm looking at your kind of third quarter numbers, just kind of eyeballing this, I mean, it looks like if I just kind of call cash cost, if I add up sort of G&A, kind of sales and marketing, R&D, I assume that's kind of pretty much your cash costs. It looks like that's kind of $17 million, $18 million here in the third quarter. Is that kind of roughly the run rate we should expect as we roll into fourth quarter in 2024? Or do you think there's going to be some flow creep on those costs next quarter and into next year?

And similar sort of line of thinking around CapEx, around $3.5 million this quarter. Is it going to be substantial at all next quarter or next year? Or is this something that really takes a few years for some of these cost to start building, and your cash burn stays, I'll call it, relatively low for the next year?

[Akash Patel, executive]

Leo, I'll take that. It's Akash. So I appreciate that our presentation of financial is a little bit different than just the standard company, given the reverse purchase accounting that happened. But if you just take a look at like the cash flow from operations that we posted year-to-date in the third quarter versus the year-to-date in the second quarter, that effectively gets you the cash burn of the company for the third quarter. And that was actually positive about $100,000.

And so when you look at the income statement, there are a few noncash items that hit the income statement, particularly around the Baker Hughes joint development program. That program, again, is half cash, half in shares. And so you see the shares get funded every quarter. But what hit the income statement is only effectively half of what actually is the cash burn of the company.

And so we had roughly $8 million of interest income come in the door, and that was roughly what the cash burn of the company was for the quarter. I do note that we had a few just items related to the fees back of public transaction that bled into Q3. And so our cash burn adjusted for those just a touch under that $8 million.

So if you analyze that, that gets you kind of where we are today. And again, we are ramping up the company. We're building out the organization. And as we continue ramping up the La Porte in preparation for testing, that CapEx will come up over time. But we're not providing guidance at this point to the magnitude, but we do, again, feel we have ample capital for not only the testing, but also to get us through till Project Permian comes online.

[Leo Paul Mariani, analyst]

Yes. Okay. I appreciate the color. It sounds like it's not going to be too dramatic of a ramp, at least in the near term, from your comments.

[Akash Patel, executive]

Right.

[Operator]

Our next question comes from Noel Parks with Tuohy Brothers.

[Noel Parks, analyst]

One thing that has -- excuse me, off a bit more in the last few months on the sequestration side, is from the oil and gas industry players that are looking for sort of storage-only type transactions in Ccf. I've been hearing them talk more about there being an increased sort of [ land grasp ] mentality, out there about just securing access to and control of core space?

And I was just wondering if that was anything that you were perceiving in your marketplace, I had sort of been thinking that it was going to be more sort of demonstrating the economics, that's been to lead the discussion. But any thoughts you have on that would be great.

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Yes. This is Danny. That's a great question, though. I think, when you take a step back and you look at where a lot of the CCUS activity is happening, in really leasing activity, specifically. A lot of it is happening. Almost all of it is happening in and around areas where you have these high concentrations of CO2 coming off of industrial plants. And so those are almost all within the Gulf Coast region, from Louisiana and Southeast Texas. And so that's where you're seeing a lot of people focus all of their activities on the subsurface is around where those sources of CO2 today. And so that's where the industry is.

But I think with NET Power, I think what makes us a little bit different, both in terms of what we're trying to do on the origination side, but also where these plants make good sense is, is not where the sources of CO2 are today, right? Because we are the source of CO2. And we can put our plants wherever this thing is, regardless of whether there's CO2 in that region or not. All we need is access to the grid and access to natural gas infrastructure.

And so the maps that we're looking at are probably much, much different than the maps that CCUS players that are looking at because their maps are saying, where are their existing sources of CO2, that I can capture, gather and sequester in close proximity to those emission sources? Our maps are just saying, where is their high porosity, good permeability thick rock, with a caprock on top of it? And are their gas pipelines are there, and are their power transmission lines?

So, we don't really care about where the existing sources of CO2 emissions are because we are that CO2 factory that you could put anywhere you want. And so like we're looking at parts of the country that nobody else is looking at because there's no CO2 emissions in those areas. And because there's no CO2 emissions in those areas, that subsurface is not worth anything to somebody that would want to go secure that poor space. You really need that pure form of CO2 to be able to unlock the value of the 45Q in those places.

So there's parts of this country, where those subsurface -- that subsurface is only valuable to NET Power. So that's a -- it's a really interesting dynamic. And I think more importantly, it creates an opportunity for parts of this country that right now are thinking, I don't know how I'm going to get to net-zero. I'm not in an area that has great wind or solar potential. All they have is coal and gas-fired power. And we look at those markets and we say, there's great subsurface potential within these sedimentary basins within this data, within this region.

They have access to natural gas coming from Appalachia. They have access to gas coming from the Rockies or coming from the Permian. And we say, those are perfect markets to decarbonize their grids, by just replacing their aging coal and gas plants with NET Power. Take advantage of the subsurface that nobody is taking advantage of, and decarbonize their grids, probably a whole lot faster than other areas that have taken our renewables-only approach. So it's a really interesting dynamic that the power of our technology really unlocks for us and our future customers.

[Noel Parks, analyst]

It is a helpful distinction that you made there. And early in the prepared remarks, I think there was a mention of just different technical task, I guess, more on the design, engineering side. And for example, as mentioned further refinement of plant control and architecture with Baker Hughes. I was wondering if you could just talk about some of those initiatives what's involved? Are these lengthy processes in any way unexpected, compared to what you were looking at earlier in the year?

[Brian Allen, executive]

Yes, sure, Noel. This is Brian. No, nothing unexpected. I think any time you change turbomachinery, every OEM has different strategies on things like how they pull their turbine or how they start and ignite, just fundamentals of how the turbine operates. And so we have to account for those in our plant design, our plant controls. Which is great.

So we're making those controls updates, which will then port over in the long term to the utility scale design because that turboexpander, that turbomachinery will have a similar architecture and similar strategy. So it's really more of a real time in terms of the controls, real-time updates as the development progresses.

But I would say also, as we make some modifications to our plant, moving the CO2 compressor and whatnot. There's always more -- when we designed the plant originally, there's things we learned in different measurements, we want to take. So we're taking the opportunity to upgrade some of our data acquisition just for enhanced analysis of the cycle.

[Operator]

Our next question comes from the line of Wade Suki with Capital One.

[Wade Suki, analyst]

I guess just to go back to the supply chain constraints, that you kind of discussed earlier in the call, any, any update you can give us on cost for SN1, or even more broadly as you think about OP1?

[Brian Allen, executive]

Yes, this is Brian. I'll address the first one. So we're still in the middle of the FEED with Zachry. We are getting initial information from long-lead suppliers, but we're not at a point yet, where we've really gotten, I'll say, firm negotiated bids that will keep progressing through the FEED into, probably all the way through mid next year.

Certainly, it's something we're watching, and I'll remind you that we're in also a value engineering and optimization exercise here. So we're not just a taker of price. I mean, we our cycle sets the entire plant design and there's things we can change and trade off. So as we keep continuing the FEED process with Zachry, and interface with Baker, on much of the major equipment, interface with the ASU supplier, interface with our major heat exchanger, or partner.

All of these things, we're really optimizing the overall plant design and thus the cost. And that will really come together at the end of FEED, but targeting mid next year.

[Wade Suki, analyst]

And maybe could you give us an anticipated time, promise not to hold you to it, but it's just a bit a time line for OP1, just broadly speaking.

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Yes. So I think if -- it's really interesting. If you look at just the schedule that we have right now for Project Permian, online '27, beginning of '28. So we're talking about 4 years from now. I mean OP1 is going to be in a position, in possibly OP2 and OP3 as we start to finalize those ones. Those are all be in positions where assuming that we can get the requisite Class II, Class VI permits in place, as those just kind of bottlenecks within the EPA for Class VI approval starts to that worked out and you get to that reasonable 2- to 3-year kind of time from submittal to approval, which is kind of what the EPA is targeting.

You can see a place where those projects are ready to go, like ready to be turned online, shortly after serial #1. And so ultimately, it's going to be a judgment call for us on how soon after serial #1, do we want to get OP1, OP2, OP3 online. And I guess, the obvious question that would -- that response would cause is why wouldn't you guys get it on rate afterwards?

And I think it's really a function of making sure that we have as high enough of a confidence in the expected performance of Project Permian, before we start ordering the equipment and start really finalizing the design of those follow-on projects. And I think we're going to learn a lot as we go through this La Porte demonstration testing with Baker over the course of the next 24 months.

That's really going to bring up just our confidence level in the performance of serial #1. Because these are just going to be scaled down components that Baker is going to be testing, that will be really, really good read-throughs to Project Permian. And so as we start to go through this process, this confidence will starts to build in advance of Project Permian coming online, that we probably want to take advantage of being able to start to bring a lot of that backlog earlier in the end of this decade.

So I guess the short answer is, you could see it online a year after Project Permian, if you wanted to take some technology risk depending on our confidence level or you could see it being 1.5 years or 2 years after Project Permian, if we don't want to take any sort of commercial risk and really know that this project is going to be able to have all of the guarantees and work exactly as performed.

But the nice place that we're at because Brian and the team are really designing this to be a standardized plant design. It allows us to be able to just swap slots. So as we really -- as the markets really start to continue to evolve on power, on the cost, just the question to CO2, some projects today that look to be more economic by 2027, 2028, they may be less economic than another project that our markets in that area, spark spreads really spike in the entire back end of that curve really moves up on the power side that we say, it will be more economic to accelerate this project over that project.

And because we have the standardized plant design, and everything inside of that plant sense is identical from one project to the next, that gives us so much flexibility to be opportunistic and take advantage of those really attractive economics, as soon as possible. And really allow those projects to rise to the top of the queue. And so that's really going to be like the really interesting part of the backlog as we build it is OP1 today may not necessarily be that second plant online.

If there's another project that comes along that we originate or that a customer wants, that is even more economic and even more beneficial to the community and to the environment that we say it makes more sense for this project to take the next plant that's in that manufacturing process.

But that's something you can only do if you have the standardized plant design, and that's certainly one of the strategic reasons why we designed this thing to not be a bespoke plant like every other thermal plant in the industry today.

[Wade Suki, analyst]

I think that makes a lot of sense. And one more if I could squeeze it in. Anything cooking internationally that you can speak to?

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Yes, the pot is boiling, and we're getting ready. Yes. No, there's a whole lot of things internationally. I think as we talked about when we were completing the De-SPAC and we just talked about, what are the key things you need of this recipe for this thing to be successful. You need access to natural gas, the lower the cost of natural gas, the better just, because the more competitive you'll be on the cost of power.

You need access to a place to store the CO2, and certainly markets, where there is value in that CO2 either on the voluntary side, like for enhanced ore recovery. Or on the involuntary side through federal credits, federal subsidies, federal taxes like the 45Q here in the United States. Those all make the carbon part of the equation valuable, right?

And then the third piece is you need access to a lot of power demand, because these are really, really large power plants. And when we're looking at deploying four NET Power plants, you're talking about a gigawatt. So, this is grid scale sort of power.

And so you need those three things, you need access to the gas, you need the subsurface, a valuable subsurface and you need power. And so like when we look internationally, Canada, Western Canada is pretty amazing, has all of those three criteria. The Middle East is really, really exciting to us. Southeast Asia, we're were forming a joint venture with SK Group is really interesting, and then parts of Australia are also really, really interesting.

Europe is one that everybody says, what about Europe? In Europe, Europe should make great sense. They've been sequestering in the North Sea for almost 20 years now. So they've demonstrated that you can safely and responsibly store that CO2 for millennia. But I think Europe's challenge right now is they've stopped developing their own gas supply.

And so right now, what they're facing is a high cost of natural gas, which is leading to a high cost of power. And so I think if Europe can really just figure out, its energy procurement strategy, around low-cost reliable natural gas. Europe becomes a really, really interesting market for us.

But I think right now, they're facing bigger problems, which is just procuring energy security right now, because right now, they're really at the mercy of a whole lot of other countries and they don't have control over their energy destiny.

So energy security is above all else, the most important thing. It's the foundation of a sustainable energy future, that you can then decarbonize with NET Power. But first, you have to secure that energy. And I think Europe has a lot of work to do to make that happen.

[Operator]

Our next question comes from [ Betty Jiang ] with Barclays.

[Unknown Analyst]

Just a question on CO2 transport. One of the major proposed CCUS pipeline was canceled last month. And a lot of that due to regulatory issues and local community pushback. I know you're focused on just short-distance transport of less than 40 miles. Are there any lessons learned there? And how do you live at your risk in your CO2 transport strategy?

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Yes. Betty, this is Danny. That's a great question. I think, first, to address the challenge with these long pipelines. I think this infrastructure challenges in opposition to new infrastructure, specific to CCUS. It's specific to any infrastructure projects. Whether it's pipelines, whether it's solar farms, wind farms, you're seeing people that are very sensitive to their land owner rights, because it's their rights, right, especially here in the United States.

And so I think one of the things that we've kind of learned, just from observing over the last couple of years, is just because you're doing something that's good for the environment doesn't necessarily give you the social license to operate wherever you want, however you want, whenever you want. I think you always have to be a good steward and a partner of those communities that could be adversely impacted by your activities.

And just because you're doing what's great for the environment, doesn't give you the right to be able to trump that. And so I think for us, that certainly shapes our approach on origination where we are really trying to minimize the impact in order to maximize the benefit of our plants.

And so what does that mean in practical terms? That means, as we're really mapping this stuff up to really understand where the CO2 things? Where is the electricity infrastructure? Where is the natural gas pipeline infrastructure? We're not really just identifying just like broad areas and saying, we'll build a 200-mile pipeline because that 200-mile pipeline, it's not good for our bottom line, right, because it's incremental CapEx. But it also just exposes us just to more risk on the social side.

And so we're ideally trying to do is identify areas where we can put the plants adjacent to the electricity transmission line and the sync is directly below. And so we're really minimizing all infrastructure. And that's kind of an ideal scenario for us, is put the plant directly on top of a sync in sequester to directly beneath the plant without having to build a 20 or 50 or 100-mile pipeline, or God forbid, a 1,000-mile pipeline. If we're having to build 1,000 mile pipeline, we're doing something wrong, right?

And I think that's like one of the advantages of why we're excited about Project Permian where it is, is there's already that CO2 infrastructure network. We don't have to build really any new CO2 pipelines. The permits are already in hand. And so it really just minimizes the risk of execution on project #1. But it is also the approach that we're taking on the origination projects, OP1, and beyond this, really identify those areas where we can minimize any above ground and below ground disturbance in order to really be able to highlight the benefits of what these projects are going to be able to do.

But again, it comes back to proper planning. And so that's one of our key criteria is really identifying where we can establish these plants with minimal new infrastructure.

[Unknown Analyst]

Great. No, that's really helpful. And then a quick follow-up on your comments earlier about lead time in the future for OP1, 2, 3 timing relative to Project Permian, that you want to learn more and seeing how the equipment perform and before move on to the next plant. So I'm wondering about the lead time for between deciding them to move forward with the plant and then how long it takes to purchase all the equipment?

Basically, once you have all the learnings that you do that how long would it take for you to move before we see the next project?

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Yes. I'll take one part of it, and then I'll hand it over to Brian on like the equipment piece because there's really two pieces to the project, right? There's the surface, there is the subsurface, there's the sort of the permitting piece, and the interconnect piece, and there's the actual plant piece. And I think with origination, what I'm really focused on staying ahead of Brian on the equipment side is setting the table for them. So it's securing the acreage, securing the subsurface, getting into the interconnect's queue, getting the Class II, Class VI permits, sequestration permits in place.

These are all like -- those are actually like the longest lead time things. You're talking about probably 4 to 5 years today to get a Class VI permit with any degree of confidence. And so those are long lead items that are really low dollar, in the grand scheme of things within the context of a $700 million to $1 billion client like what a NET Power plant could be.

And so these are low-dollar things that remove the long lead item, the longest lead item from the equation. And so as we look at really just setting the table, really, what we're going to be doing on the origination side is setting that table for Brian, so that we have not just the rights secured, but we have the permits in hand for both power and sequestration. And we've really set the table for Brian and the team to say now we're ready to deploy plants on this location, on that location, on that location.

And so these are things that we're going to be doing in getting these projects essentially to FID over the course of the next few years. And then really, that decision point, ongoing from securing the opportunity, to then developing it, and turning online. That's really a function of Brian and the engineering team and the operations team's confidence in when they want to start to sequence the next group of projects. But in terms of equipment, Brian?

[Brian Allen, executive]

Yes, , I think that's where this ties nicely with our three pillar strategy. So as we go through serial #1, and we're executing the FEED with Zachry and engaging with world-class supply chain partners. We're not having discussions on a transactional basis of just one project.

Every discussion we're having with, whether it's the ASU, the heat exchangers, the turbomachinery, the whole plant design, it's all about getting to manufacturing mode. So we're setting ourselves up that as we identify who are those best partners to work with us on the first plant. We're really designing our process around those specific suppliers, and we're identifying folks and talking to them and expecting that they can move into manufacturing mode.

So really, the first plant is, I'll say, the trial run to find the right partners that we then line up the global supply chain and supply agreements for the second, third and fourth projects and onward. So I mean that's how we'll mitigate the supply chain, long lead times is really standardize the design. So as Danny said, you can swap slots. The -- essentially, the core design of the power cycle, all that equipment will be standardized.

And then we work with those folks, not just on the transactional-first project basis, but we're lining them up with expectations that they can move us into manufacturing mode.

[Operator]

Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Levine with Citi.

[Ryan Levine, analyst]

Hope to follow up a little bit more on the international front. How do you see the permitting or execution time line differ as you pursue different geographies? And any key challenges or opportunities that may emerge on the permitting or regulatory environment side?

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Ryan, this is Danny. Yes. So there's really -- I mean, there's a few pieces on the permitting piece. There's permitting at the state level. And there's permitting at the federal level, right, in those of them apply to NET Power projects for a variety of applications. I think let's start on the subsurface piece, and then we'll move to the grid and then we'll move to the air.

So starting below ground, almost all states that have oil and gas activities today control primacy over Class II, so primarily enhanced oil recovery. And so that permit process is it's state-by-state dependent, but it's very quick. You're talking about less than 12 months in some of the states could be a matter of months.

And so as you look at Project Permian, for example, we're already tied into OXY -- we'll be tied into OXY CO2 network where they already have existing EOR operations. And so for us and why we really like Project Permian, while it's not going to be indicative of the true potential of what NET Power continue to decarbonize the grid when we go into Class VI permit geologic sequestration areas. But what it does is it isolates and eliminates the risk of that permitting process for Class II, because we already have the permits and the infrastructure in place to make it happen.

When you look at Class VI, Class VI is an interesting one because right now, only two states in the United States have Class VI primacy, North Dakota and Wyoming. And they're issuing Class VI permits really, really quick. Less than a year versus where the EPA is at, which is for all other states, which could be 3 to 5 years. Now the EPA is kind of in reactive mode, responding to a massive influx of new permit applications for Class VI. So they're really playing catch-up, trying to just remove this bottleneck in their approval process.

I think the EPA's goal, as they publicly stated, is to be able to get it down to less than 3 years, and I think they're targeting 2 years for that permit process from initial submission through approval. And so that's going to be fantastic on the subsurface side, if they can get it down to that level. But I think ultimately, the EPA is actually encouraging. Every single state that's looking at sequestration within their borders to take primacy over Class VI.

And I think you're going to see the NET Power play an active role in helping those states that wouldn't otherwise be pursuing primacy for Class VI, will be the ones to work with them to help push them to file for that primacy, just because we might be the only source of captured CO2 within those borders that would necessitate primacy over Class VI. So we see Class VI times coming down across the board. It stays with EPA. And certainly, it gets down to less than 12 months in most senses if states take primacy you over it.

On the interconnect side, again, the process is different from each grid system. There's six major grid systems in the U.S. ERCOT the process is fairly fast, compared to some of the other ones. That's another reason why Project Permian is where it is. We're already going to interconnect process with ERCOT right now. So that's not going to be a gating item in COD of Project Permian.

But if you look at some of these other states, there's a bottleneck within their interconnect queue. And so again, it just -- it requires just proper planning. It could be a couple of years in some of these states to get an interconnection. I think if we were talking about trying to get these projects online in '24 or '25, like a lot of these renewable guys, it would be problematic, but certainly not.

And then the last thing on the air, and then I'll get to the international piece. This is probably one of the most unique features of NET Power that we don't really talk about because everybody, when they think about air quality, people associate that with CO2. But that's really atmosphere quality. And so yes, NET Power essentially eliminates all CO2 from power generation, which is so differentiated.

But we don't have any NOx because we don't let nitrogen into the combustion chamber. We don't have SOx because this is natural gas, and it's not coal, so there's no sulfur. So it can't be oxidized. And we don't have any particular matter, particulous matter. And so when you look at like those three criteria are prudent, we don't have any of them.

And so within the eyes of the EPA and the things that they regulate, which are those criteria air pollutants, we don't have them. So we'll be able to get just a minor source permit on the air piece, which is sub differentiated versus any carbon emitting plant in the world today.

I think when you go internationally, the permitting process is actually a whole lot faster. And it's mostly just because most of these are nation states in its -- the entities within these states are all kind of controlled by the country, right? And so you have the national energy company, which also owns the national oil company, which also owns the surface and the subsurface in the whole permitting process.

So things are fairly streamlined in most international markets. Whether it's the Middle East, whether it's parts of Southeast Asia, it's a lot different than it is here in the United States, where individuals in states have a lot more say in the outcome. And so the permitting process in these other states are obviously going to be a whole lot faster than I think they were in the United States. I think that's certainly one of the challenges that we have here.

But when we look at just why the United States is so attractive to us, it's just because this is the largest market in the world for NET Power and one of the most economic, both because of our access to the lowest-cost gas in the world, a really, really valuable carbon market, and an aging fleet of coal and gas plants.

Like if we could just replace all of the aging coal and gas plants within the sedimentary basins, we're talking about 1,000 NET Power plants. And so we could just sit here and be sat and happy just deploying these and replacing these aging coal and gas plants over the next 10 to 20 years and not spend any time on the international markets. But I think part of the reason why the international markets are important to us is, global warming is a global thing. It's not just a U.S. thing. And so we have a responsibility.

If we have a technology that can help other countries achieve their decarbonization goals, we feel like we have a social responsibility to deploy in those areas. So it's going to be a focus area of ours over the course of the next decade, and hopefully, one of our first 10 projects is something in an international market.

[Ryan Levine, analyst]

Great. And then one other question. In terms of some of your comments, it seems to suggest that, correct me if I'm not interpreting correctly, that within the U.S., the MISO power market may be more attractive, relative to maybe some of the other regions. Was that what you were signaling or there's any color you could share regarding what power markets are most attractive beyond the first two projects?

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Yes. I mean, we don't have a contrarian view of where we think power markets go. Just looking at forward spark spreads and spark spreads for the listeners is really just or between buying a BTU of gas and converting it into an electron, that spark spread is really just that proxy for the value of gas-fired power. And there is a whole futures market for spark spreads. And so all we're really doing is looking at all of those deregulated competitive power markets, where you have these future pricings to really look at what are future spark spreads across the competitive power markets.

So from CISO, California, ERCOT, MISO, PJM, Pennsylvania principally, New York ISO, New England ISO, SPP, like when you look across all of those, there's markets that are better than others, and there is markets that are worse. And so when we look at it through the lens of origination, we're really focused on the most economic markets.

MISO is great. PJM is amazing. California is great. ERCOT is okay. It's actually the most challenging in all of them. And if we can get the economics to work in ERCOT, you can get these economics to work anywhere in the world. Which I think is a testament to the efficiency of what NET Power can deliver.

But certainly, for origination, we're going to be focused on those markets that have good spark spreads. That's ultimately like going to be what helps ensure that we can get these projects financed, get these projects online and actually start getting to work on decarbonize these grid systems sooner.

[Operator]

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the floor back over to Danny Rice for closing remarks.

[Daniel Rice, executive]

Thanks, everybody, for joining us today. Those are really, really good questions from the investor community and we hope you guys keep them coming, as we continue to build this company and deliver the energy trifecta. So appreciate everybody's support, and we look forward to speaking with you next quarter.

[Operator]

This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.