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 didn't Mike, no. Not sure the timing is right to get answers from the Company on those questions.
The boys were trapped because part of the passage were lower than them, an underground lake.
I don't know how horizontal the lateral drills bore into the coal, but they are going to be in a reasonably straight line. They could drill uphill to encourage water to gravitate down the slope. towards the vertical pumps. Gas pressure will push the methane downhill I guess :O)
Methane is lighter than air but will there be any air down there? The vertical has to be gas tight so I guess not? Enough - time for cinnemon chips!
Mike, I thought NE was thinking aloud and hoping somebody had an answer to a few thoughts.
It is clear nobody does at the moment.
Before I was put on Sertraline, I could not listen to any news of the Thai boys football team and coach who were trapped in a cave. But I have pondered their plight at length and compared it with #3 .
The parallels are a very easy way to describe what I think could be happening with gas flows.
They were trapped by rainwater flooding into the passage behind them.
No landslip afaik!
Now, suppose there was a landslip in #3's lateral well. The water would back up blocking the gas.
Clearly, water is still getting over the top of the blockage along with patches of gas, causing the fluctuations?
Assuming there is no aquifer (as NE considered) , and it is a desert around there, the water will become a trickle one day. At that point the gap above the blockage will be open and bingo, the gas won't back up like water does!
If this is what has happened, there is a case for turning up the pumps. And there is the rub!
Turn up the pumps and risk blocking #4 with coal fines?
This makes perfect sense to me , and if there is such a dilemma , I'd side with TG's approach, as usual.
@NoEasy I'm wandering if you posted your questions to the company directly? If so have you received a response yet? Thanks
BTS have they got much wrong?
They underestimated how long the dewatering would take.
I say they - but they were probably lead to that conclusion by experts.
Experts who have never worked with CBM in Botswana before.
DTE, We are having problems enough evacuating 2 wells.
Colm took great care to describe the difference in height between #3 and #4 (where they meet the vertical well) and how balancing them is tricky. Adding #5 to the equation must have been seriously considered but rejected.
Maybe to get the piggy to market quickly.
Maybe because #3 and #4 were regarded as plenty to get us started (I hope, and it could be still on the cards).
Maybe having #5 ready to dewater with #n for the next phase - thought to be easier once an existing producing well is in place - would be better use of #5?
Or maybe #5 is too poor to bother with.
The chosen approach, give #3 and #4 as much time as it takes , is still favourite.
But they have had to create plan B after passing the expected deadline for plan A and our finances.
I was going to say "Long live plan A" - but that is not quite right is it.
Lets be honest DTE.
Their business strategy from the beginning has been suspect.
TG and his little (well paid)team don't get much right.But I am sure one thing they will get right is when they raise their wages for another year.
Lesedi 5 was vertically drilled at the start of last year, only the lateral element was needed for completion. Questions have to be asked why Lesedi 5 was not completed as per 3 and 4. Having 50% more water being pumped out the reservoir may have reduced the water levels sufficiently to obtain commercial gas flows across all three wells. Seems to me that penny pinching over the wells at the beginning may end up being a very expensive mistake.
Excellent series of questions NoEasy
Points that would help me now:
1. How long will be given before a decision is made to move to further drilling?
2. We will I am sure have already looked at the process of introducing new wells to aid the dewatering, so are we looking at one/two or more additional wells. Or a stepped approach dependant upon the impact of each well?
3. From a technical point of view how easy is it to introduce new wells into what is already a complex operation managing pressure levels over the six existing wells.?
4. It was mentioned in the November RNS that dewatering is measured in revs per minute (rpm) and that the dewatering objective would start to be achieved when we hit 100rpm's. We started at 300rpm's and by November we were generally in the range between 100- 200 rpm's. Where are we now?
5. Is the Company still 'very confident' that sustained commercial gas flows will be attained from the Lesedi pods? Or have we indeed move back from this position in light of the length of time taken to progress dewatering?
6. The coal is signalling excellent permeability. Is this permeability the reason we have taken so long to dewater sufficiently or is there reason to believe that we may be connected to a strong acquifer?
I also think I very much missed the wood for the trees leading up to this. Subtle difference it may seem but I was a step ahead in focusing on the gas flow and not the dewatering. One leads to the other. TG, GG & CC all got away with talking about the gas and were allowed a free run and not pressed on the dewatering speed or the likely need for more wells. I had the trigger for that from the 20th Jan announcement, 'The Lesedi 3 and 4 pods are producing water in isolation which makes dewatering a slower and more difficult exercise than would otherwise be the case in a full field development. In a field development scenario, an array of wells would be located adjacent to each other which would serve to facilitate dewatering.'
It's been good to see the posting here has been focused upon what has been released this morning. Been a pleasure in that way reading the board today. Cheers everyone and I hope we give birth to that unexpected baby as Brad quite rightly pointed out does happen.
Given the companies strive to retain shareholder value this makes me wonder at what point do you carry out a dilutive fund raise? Before this news or after? There is still indecision in whether the present wells will do the job. So back to Point 1. above for me.
Don't say what, say pardon.
All is all , what can TG add?
He might have stated what the figures are for gas flows but maybe it is too complicated to decide how much gas is coming and going.
If #3 is producing erratically , which sounds certain, I guess the #4 gas will be split between rising up the vertical shaft and doubling back into #3 , making it look erratic despite it being consistent?
Non return valves would stop that - making it possible to measure #4 flow plus variable assistance from #3 , so I guess non-return valves are impracticable for a mixture of gas, water and finings - they might invite problems? I imagine fitting them is impossible from the surface there is a composite casing/lining designed for vertical drills that continue into a lateral drill? But extending a lateral would then be impossible - return valve in the way?
Hotcopper initial reaction was more relaxed that here. The first two posters saw little change- just wait for dewatering to reduce enough for accurate readings - reflected by the sp attracting more buys than I expected.
Says what?
Whizzer , don't you think the RNS says it all?
By far, the worst share in my portfolio.
Management team are incapable and incompetent.
The only positive is the pension fund haven’t off loaded any shares yet! They are sat on a massive loss at this time. Tg has to secure funding soon. The person who added a large amount last week must be kicking themselves at the moment! Tg must do an interview to give us all a clue where this project is heading.