Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
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. 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.
I used *** as a delimiter at both ends of an extract to highlight it , and then decided to use "less than" and "greater than" to show start and finish.
I think LSE took it to be hypertext and deleted everything between the inner ones and left the outter ones.
tiring day to review it!
Hard to believe they need more pods just to dewater.
They have stated that the pumps were running at 300rpm initially and steady gas flows are unachievable until they get below 100 rpm.
Because coal fines can block the channels if water is pumped too vigorously they deliberately lowered the revs to between 100rpm and 200rpm. I think Colm said less than 100 rpm has been possible at times. But there was a lot of optimism in that podcast.
Unblocking the channels is clearly difficult or they'd have risked it? But it sounds easier, cheaper and much quicker than drilling new pods?
Dewatering #3 and #4 may well be partially dewatering future pods so I am comfortable with their policy on #3 and #4 if they are not write offs.
"Since the initial rate announcement, gas flow rates have continued to fluctuate both up and down with periodic short-term rates observed which have been much higher than those initially announced. " is the sentence that bothers me in the context of today's RNS. Previously I'd have assumed they meant fluctated up and down ABOVE initial rates. Today I read "much higher" but thought "not much lower?" but lower! Lower than 20 rang alarm bells but looking at whether the sentence was cut and pasted I found Nov 25th and today were worded differently. I'll be interested to see what happens on ASX tonight.
In November I was happy, today not, but there is precious little difference. Mentioning LOWER was a deliberate action. But have I read too much into it?
1. <<
The Company will not be in a position to announce an increased rate until such time that higher levels are sustained and confirmed by our advisors.
The Company is operating in a region where commercial CBM had not been produced before so there is no comparable data from this operating environment regarding how long it may take, or if it is even possible, for a commercial gas flow to be achieved. However, based on information to date, the Company has no reason to believe that the targeted commercial gas flow rates will not be achieved noting that the Company is generally pleased with well performance to date.
2. The Company previously announced initial gas flow rates of approximately 20 Mscfd (thousand standard cubic feet per day) from each of the Lesedi 3 and Lesedi 4 production pods.
<<
To date, the Company is very pleased with the performance of both wells.
Rates have reduced from when? from the beginning? If they are continuing to reduce month on month that would be encouraging. But I suspect they are struggling because they can't increase the amount of water being pumped through fear of damaging the well, yet the two wells working together are not removing enough water to lower the aquifer and give the results we need.
Water will always find a natural level, if permeability is not good, it's very easy to lower a water locally around a well as the water movement is restrained by the material in the ground. However, we are told that permeability of the coal in these wells is very good. Great for gas production if you can get rid of the water.
I've been thinking about this part in the RNS:
Since the initial rate announcement, gas flow rates have continued to fluctuate both up and down with periodic short-term rates observed which have been much higher than those initially announced.
It could mean that the flow rate spiked up high to say 80-90mcfd then dropped to 30-40mcfd then spiked to 100mcfd and dropped to 50-60 mark and so on.....’Short-term rates are much higher’. Just me trying to stay positive lol..
Now get a fecking interview done TG!
And this.....
'.. the Company has no reason to believe that the targeted commercial gas flow rates will not be achieved noting that the Company is generally pleased with well performance to date. '
OK, today's RNS stated...
Since the Lesedi 3 and 4 pods have been in production, WATER RATES HAVE REDUCED with the aim of taking as much water as possible out of the underground coal seam reservoir. Once this is achieved, the coal is expected to be more gas saturated and therefore THE GAS FLOW RATE SHOULD INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY.
And the de-watering process is following the text book path for a new (first) well on a new coal seam.
i agree with downtoearth. the primary risk is the dewatering
there is no point to talk about eskom being in trouble and us having enough reserves...
fingers crossed tg will explain in more detail how far they are in this process
It means nothing if they can't afford to get the water level any lower
Here TLOU spell out that, although they might be only pitching for 2Mw rising 10Mw of a 100Mw tender, they are the ONLY company with either the reserves of mining license necessary to fulfil the whole 100Mw of required power.
I don't know, but would be very surprised if that wasn't part of Chairman Tony Gilby's agenda while in Botswana this week. After all, why else include the fact in today's RNS?
RNS:
The project has full environmental approval which includes gas extraction, electricity generation and construction of transmission lines. In addition, the Company has approval for 20MW of solar generation. Clean CBM power is ideal for use in conjunction with solar projects.
TLOU HAS THE ONLY CBM MINING LICENCE IN BOTSWANA. A MINING LICENCE IS REQUIRED BY AN OPERATOR TO DEVELOP A CBM ASSET. This licence spans a large 900 Km2 area and is valid until 2042 so the Company has security of tenure over the project.
TLOU HAS THE ONLY INDEPENDENTLY CERTIFIED CBM GAS RESERVES IN BOTSWANA, with 252 Billion Cubic Feet (BCF) of 3P gas Reserves certified in the Lesedi project area. In addition, the 3C Contingent Gas Resources are approximately 3 Trillion Cubic Feet (TCF). The potential upside from further successful development of this area is substantial.