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?
Danny Rice: Yes, Hey 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. And both 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 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’s 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 can do to decarbonize the grid when we go into Class VI permits 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 permits in 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 three to five 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’ve publicly stated, is to be able to get it down to less than three years. And I think they’re targeting two years for that permit process from initial submissions 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 of our Class VI. And I think you’re going to see 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.
