Because that 200 mile pipeline, it’s not good for our bottom line because it’s incremental CapEx, but it also just exposes us just to more risk on the social side. And so what we are ideally trying to do is identify areas where we can put the plant adjacent to the electricity transmission line and the sink 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 the sink in sequestered directly beneath the plant without having to build a 20- or a 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.
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 number one, but it’s also the approach that we’re taking on the origination projects, OP1 and beyond those. 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.
Betty Jiang : Great. That’s really helpful. Thanks. And then a quick follow up on your comments earlier about lead time in the future for OP1, 2, or 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. And 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?
Danny Rice: 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. There’s the surface, there’s the subsurface, there’s so the permitting piece, and the interconnect piece, and there’s the actual plant fees. 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 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 four to five years today to get a Class VI permits 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 plant like what in that 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 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 and 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: Yes, I think that’s where this ties nicely with our three-pillar strategy. So as we go through serial number one, and we’re executing the FEED with Zachary 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 up 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 file lined 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 essentially the core design of the power cycle, all that equipment will be standardized. And then we work with those not just on a 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: Good morning. I hope to follow up a little bit more on the international front. How do you see the permitting or execution timeline differ as you pursue different geographies? Any key challenges or opportunities that may emerge on the permitting or regulatory environment side?
