Akash Patel : Leo, I’ll take that. It’s Akash. So I appreciate that our presentation of financials is a little bit different than just the standard, given the reverse purchase accounting that happened. But if you just take a look at like the cash flow from operations that we’ve posted year to date in 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 non-cash 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 we’ll hit the income statement is only effectively half of what actually is the cash burn of 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 de facto public transaction that bled into Q3 and so our cash burn adjusted for those are just a touch under that $8 million. So if you analyze 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 La Porte 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 that we have ample capital for not only the testing, but also to get us through till project comes online.
Leo Mariani: 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 comment.
Akash Patel : Right.
Operator: Our next question comes from Noel Parks with Tuohy Brothers.
Noel Parks: One thing that is off a bit more in the last few months on the sequestration side is from specifically the oil and gas industry players that are looking for sort of storage-only type transaction in CCS. I’ve been hearing them talk more about there being an increased sort of land grab mentality out there about just securing access to and control of pore space. And I was just wondering if that was anything that you are perceiving in your marketplace. I had sort of been thinking that it was going to be more sort of demonstrating the economics that was going to lead the discussions. But, any thoughts you have on that would be great.
Danny Rice: Yes, this is Danny. No, it’s a great question, Noel. I think, when you take a step back and you look at where a lot of the CCS activity is happening, and really leasing activities 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 operating all within the Gulf Coast region from Louisiana into Southeast Texas. And so that’s where you’re seeing a lot of people focused 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.
Because we are the source of CO2, and we can put our plants wherever the sink 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 CCS players that are — are looking at because their maps are saying where are there 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 cap rock on top of it. And are their gas pipelines their and 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 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 in first place. 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 — 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 we 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.
