London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Kasjnaton: "We have had some wild cat drills, they all failed. Every single one of them. Badile = fail,TE8 = fail, TE9 = Fail, TE10= fail".
However, they didn't fail because of lack of hydrocarbons. Therefore, something which can show the presence of hydrocarbons by surface analysis is absolutely no guarantee of drill success. Whereas known commercial hydrocarbons at TE-5 are a guaranteed source of revenue, albeit slower than some would like. So when you say Scotforth's technology was "100% accurate with identifying the outcomes of 3 drills for Sound, Badile, TE-9 and TE-10", are you claiming that it not only detects hydrocarbons but can measure reservoir porosity and permeability and is a 100% guarantee of commerciality? That would be a pretty neat trick. It's also a tad unbelievable.
TE-8: "Gas shows were encountered over this interval and subsequent petrophysical analysis suggests that these sandstones may be permeable and likely to be producible with mechanical stimulation... TE-8 also penetrated 114 metres of TAGI I reservoir (approximately twice the thickness of the TAGI I reservoir encountered in wells on the TE-5 horst) with gas shows. The TAGI sands encountered by TE-8 are also confirmed to be at the same reservoir pressure as the previous wells on the TE-5 horst (TE-5, TE-6 and TE-7). Sedimentologically, the TAGI at the specific TE-8 location was however found to be much finer grained than any of the previous wells and cemented with carbonate, anhydrite and halite".
Te-9: "Drill gas readings in both the TAGI and Paleozoic intervals showed a range of C1 to C5 hydrocarbons, which the Company believes is further evidence of a working petroleum system. All data from the well are subject to ongoing analysis, which also includes other rock and drill gas samples recovered during operations, that will provide further valuable data to derisk the prospectivity of the wider permit area".
TE-10: "the TE-10 exploration well was drilled to a measured depth ("MD") of 2,218 mMD, with gas shows greater than background levels observed across the gross TAGI interval, from 1,908 mMD to approximately 2,030m MD. Both internal and external petrophysical interpretations of wireline log data, integrated with FMI (high definition formation micro-imager log), and side wall core analyses, estimated net pay of up to 15.4m in a succession of thinly bedded gas bearing intervals distributed throughout the 110m gross TAGI reservoir interval. The presence of moveable hydrocarbons was further supported by the successful recovery of a gas sample from 1,937 mMD, with no evidence of water, using a modular formation dynamics tester (MDT)".
Thanks PS200306 for your reply
The research that I have carried out states that there is a 15% false negative, i.e. this technology will not always detect where hydrocarbons are but where it does state that hydrocarbons are present then hydrocarbons will be found. Due, I assume, to a lower signal/noise ratio where indicators are less strong.
It doesn’t really matter of course as with that sort of success rate it could still be a game changer for Sound shareholders
I have only said that I think this technology can help reduce risk of drilling more dusters.
GRH never said that the technology is 100%, he only stated that they have been 100% accurate with identifying the outcomes of 3 drills for Sound, Badile, TE-9 and TE-10.
I don't believe he has expressed an opinion to Sound on TE8 but from his posts he did tell Sound in advance about all the other drills, not afterwards as you claim, he also states that everything is auditable, he must therefore have evidence to back this claim, therefore making this more than merely anecdotal.
You mention 'your' several times in your post, this is not my technology, I am not associated with Scotforth, I just want to see a decent return on my investment and as quickly as possible. I feel the only way that this can be achieved is through the discovery of a substantial amount of commercial hydrocarbons.
We have had some wild cat drills, they all failed. Every single one of them. Badile = fail,TE8 = fail, TE9 = Fail, TE10= fail
A truly awful track record, staggering when you consider all the hype, it has cost me a large amount of money.
I am still young enough to try to rebuild my capital but from the boards it is very obvious there are many here who are much older than me and they do not have enough time or residual capital left to hang around here for many years
The market cap is £15m, as Trellis has said, £40m to £50m will be needed in order to get to the point of LNG production, there is, whatever way you look at it, going to be some form of dilution in order to get there.
At which point any value left in the TE-5 horst or elsewhere will be reduced down significantly, not only that but some form of drilling will have to happen at some point in the future anyway.
The question is, do we dilute down now, massively in order to get to LNG in a couple of years, and have no, to very little return on investment, or do we go for a drill first, which would incur far less dilution, and provide far greater upside?
Of course I do not have a crystal ball and Graham may be able to get the funding required without massive dilution but if that were the case why did they put forward the proposal for issuing as much equity as required at the last AGM, if that funding is not needed?
If we do go for a drill elsewhere on the licence area how on earth do you propose we select the right location of the next drill?
Purely on Seismic which has been wrong 4 times out of 4
or do we change tack
Brian spoke to me at the DD that sound were employing in ground hydrocarbon capture modules at te9/10 drill site locations, to this day we haven't heard anything about the post analysis results from such techniques but the timeframe of insertion wouldn't have been enough to change location, used to back up the siesmic interpretation which we now know is pants. As Graham alluded to "we now know where not to drill" could that pain help in a future drilling campaign once we get into production.
Kasjnaton, I have a masters degree in astrophysics so I can vaguely understand the RSDD-H concept in principle if not in detail . Even if I was able to understand the detail it would require access to those unpublished proprietary algorithms. However -- the layman's version will do just fine: hydrocarbon seepage alters soil and vegetation colours in a way that can be detected.
K: "So, if RSDD-H was 100% accurate as was claimed and if both the timeframe and content of information given to Sound by GRH was as per the post on the PRD board, and copied by me to here, is true, then surely questions must be asked of why this information was ignored by the previous BoD."
But hang on. Even Peter Hutchison does not claim a 100% success rate for RSDD-H in that video. He says it can used in conjunction with other analyses to improve drilling COS and to increase the value of contingent resources. GRH does not claim 100% on that PRD thread. The after-the-fact 100% for Tendrara is anecdotal.
I'm afraid Scotforth are in the position of someone selling magic beans. The a priori likelihood of the beans actually being magic is negligible. But give us a free magic bean and lets see if it grows a giant beanstalk. What ... it did? Well maybe it was the soil that was magic and not the bean. Let's have another free bean. We'd need a lot of giant beanstalks before we were convinced your beans were magic, and even then it might just be that we have a lot of magic soil acreage. Why would we pay big money for your allegedly magic beans when we already own the magic soil?
On the other hand, after a few beanstalk failures we realise our soil isn't all it was cracked up to be. Now your magic beans might actually come in handy. But your price would have to be realistic and I reckon you'd have to have some skin in the game by chipping in for any failed beanstalks.
I think you can see the problem for any potential purchaser of RSDD-H.
"I do not wish to get too technical for fear of perhaps not being understood "
Don't kid yourself. Fourier Transforms are taught in YEAR ONE of any science degree. It is most certainly not a complex concept. However, what that has got to do with the Scotforth technology I don't know. By underestimated your audience, you have made yourself look even more of a fake than you did before. More than 95% of your posts over the last couple of years have been about the voodoo technology. Who are you trying to kid? Move on.
Thank you ps200306 for replying to my message in a more reasoned manner than what some other posters have done.
However I must reiterate that I am not selling anything, just trying to get to the truth.
I should perhaps apolgise to the people on this board as maybe I am a step or two ahead of most on here and I picked up on information which a number of people did not understand which resulted in their negativity.
I have always maintained that I think that RSDD-H could be used to help reduce the risk, please note not totally eliminate all risk, of drilling yet another duster.
I am sure that no one wants another duster drilled!
In the past I have worked with Fourier Transform infra-red spectroscopy, and although a different area to hyperspectral imaging it has given me a bit of a background as to what can be acheived, and this is also the reason for it having piqued my interest.
I do not wish to get too technical for fear of perhaps not being understood and once again alienating people, so I will try and keep it as simple as possible.
The work I had carried out involved the analysis of specially prepared gas or liquid samples that were placed between an infra red source and the infra red detector.
The produced output depended upon the chemical constituents within the sample.
Basically the energy that bonds between atoms absorb is unique to each bond type, such that each molecule has its own 'fingerprint'.
It is therefore possible, by the use of infra red spectrometry to carry out quantitative and qualitative analysis to determine what molecules are present within a sample.
As for hyperspectral imagery, the sensors on the satellites cover a vast range of frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Wikipedia is a good start for both subjects;
Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy
So, if RSDD-H was 100% accurate as was claimed and if both the timeframe and content of information given to Sound by GRH was as per the post on the PRD board, and copied by me to here, is true, then surely questions must be asked of why this information was ignored by the previous BoD.
The shares were 100p and now just over 1p so I think shareholders should have access to the communications that occured between the two parties, so that at the very least we can get to the truth?
Kasjnaton: " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIRhkDqRNRM&t=1216s It would be a brave man to either stand up and talk about a technology in front of well informed people if that technology were of no vlaue"
You must never have heard the term "snake oil salesman". Strange, since we had one as CEO of Sound Energy quite recently. For such a "proven" technology, the Q&A in that video is very weak. He was vague about evidence for its efficacy. He said it had been tried in one place and they got a dry hole followed by three successes followed by five more dry. The latter allegedly because people wouldn't listen to him. That's also strange for such a "proven" technology. The technology is not intended to be used on its own but in conjunction with other geophysical analyses. But where are the non-anecdotal specific numbers about the success rate? He alludes to previous work by "Russians". I presume that refers to the work in Western Siberia referenced in this similarly vague paper:
If you're selling "proprietary algorithms" for big money you're gonna need a hell of a lot more specifics.
you say " which IP address I am using."
this is an interesting. virtually all private investors will have dynamically assigned ip addresses that change fairly regularly. of course it is possible to identify the user of an ip address even after they have leased another IP, but this involves getting a court order to force the service provider to divulge the details.
but, I digress.
the important thing is the fact that you have a fixed IP rather points to you posting from business (businesses often pay more to have a fixed IP). it's not Scotforth by any chance? :)
Blimey. They really are desperate to get somebody to pay for the mumbo jumbo "technology" aren't they? I really wish they did it with a bit more dignity though. If they can't afford to spend money on PR/advertising, at least they could try to be more honest when flogging it on a free bb.
So we know his name and address .I don’t see anyone else here revealing this information. I have posted my posted my name before as has Trellis
Lastly, for everyones benefit a few more links;
It would be a brave man to either stand up and talk about a technology in front of well informed people if that technology were of no vlaue, or hire a hall somewhere and fit it out with branding in order to try and promote a technology and then claim that you were present when you were not.
The reputational cost of the first is off the scale and the legal consequences of misrepresentation plus potentially other charges does not even make such a thing worth cnosidering.
An abstract of a presentation that was given at the AAPG SEG in 2015, sponsors include; Chevron, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total.
As for trying to get me banned from here, please do contact LSE and ask them to look into my account and which IP address I am using.
But instead of opening up a subject for discussion, this post will probably either be ignored or will return ill informed comments.
I am really sorry for making you the subject of some crazed allegations on here
My intentions were and remain decent and honorable, however I hadn’t allowed for the fact that some on here seem hell bent on trying to destroy value rather than build it. It is very sad to see when so much money has been lost, including mine
I am very sure that almost nobody here has read any of the research I posted links to .There was a lot of it, if they had read it then they do not understand the enormity of what the technology can potentially acheive.
Having followed GRH's posts since he first registered on here, it was clear to me that he registered on the BB to correct some technical errors posted by a few posters, since then I have never found a single post of his that looks anything like ‘marketing’ , again if you can find one I would be amazed
I had noticed he recently posted on PRD where he seems to own shares and he had actually published a frankly amazing Sound Q&A on 19th May, it showed 100% accuracy of the tech in prediciting drill results before any RNS related to those drills was released.
Mull that over in your minds .how much money could have been saved /made?
There have been several totally uninformed statements on here that the tech has no value and that the 'majors or super majors' are not interested in this type of technology.
Remember that GRH had not posted any links to the technology, where it has been used, how it is used etc.
It was me that posted all those links, every last one of them
I did that after carrying out my own research on the use of hyperspectral imaging
The reason for posting those links? For one reason only, to have an informed discussion on here.To discuss the technology, it's pro's and con's etc, and if I had made a mistake in the assesment of RSDD-H, for someone to show me where I had made that mistake.
i.e. for them to prove that it is of no use, ultimately no one has yet proved to me that I was wrong!!! The only evidence that I have seen is that it works.
Nobody has shown any information to the contrary in any form, it must therefore only be their uninformed opinions which they post.
Ultimately though all these points do is to side track the point of me posting the links in the first place; to have a discussion about a technology that may help the business that I invested in, and now having to deal with, to me, significant losses!!
But to all the naysayers; never mind, try and refinance at least £50+ million to get the micro LNG project up and running and then a few more years later to clear the debt (can they???)and then a few more years to have sufficient funds to go for another wildcat drill.
Just how much will one drill cost? a lot less than the £50M+ needed above.
GRH was even accused of lying about where he lived, well his address was posted on here for all to see, and I would say that he must be successful to own an approx £4M property (Zoopla ).