......... , ., PENTOL

Economical Calculation of Final Results

Item

Cost of PentoMuls p.a.

Cost of PentoMag p.a.

Rental Cost

Cost of Water (176'800 € / m3)

Loss of Water vaporisation

Total Cost

Reduction of Exit gas temp (43 °C)

Reduction of unburned carbon

Reduction of Ash Disposal Cost

Reduction of Excess Air

Reduction of atomising steam

Reduction of soot blowing steam

Elimination of Fouling

Boiler Tube cleaning

Total Benefits

Total Balance (Benefits - Cost)

Alternative Cost Ammonium Plant:

Difference to PentoMuls/ PentoMag:

€

€

€

€

€

€

43°c €

€

78 % €

€

50% €

€

€

€

€

€

€

€

Final Results

- 810'360

-295 '440

- 28'700

-6'330

- 395 '340

- 1'536'170

2'734'697

173'890

15'720

113'110

151'350

103'410

?

?

2'993'846

1'457'676

- 565 '560

2'023'236

The net benefit of the combined PentoMag® / PentoMuls® is proven clearly. It shows the Ammonium Plant technology to be no economical alternative.

Conclusion

The calculation shows the combined PentoMuls / PentoMag treatment to be economically very interesting. The environmental issues have been solved by increasing the net efficiency of the boilers.

Reducing S03 with Ammonium is no alternative to a combined PentoMuls / PentoMag application, as it offers no financial advantage.

August 20th, 2002

Pentol GmbH Marco Mattiello Combustion Engineer

Trial Report of 26.7.2004

Pentol GmbH Olivier Blauenstein Project Manager

page 7 of 11