Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
That could get a little confusing as the post has disappeared. Related to Blueglow post.
There you go, another one for the bin. How dare you.
Keith,
Re your "Big Scoop" on TheBold.
I wasn't going to bother commenting, but since you have semi rejected an olive branch with further stern words, here is my take on your accusations.
You say that:
"TheBold claims to know more about drilling and rigless testing than anyone else on this board, and more than Lonny & Moyra....".
Yet I haven't encountered any such statement?
Having established a false context, you proceed to accuse him of plagiarism, referencing a particular post from March at 15:14.
I took a look at the post you mention, then the wider thread for proper context. There is no attempt to plagiarise whatsoever.
The text is delivered in the form of technical writing, a style impossible to mistake for his own, forming the second part of two post, necessary to navigate LSEs character limit, the first of which still contains the numbered annotations for reference from the original article.
There is no attempt to disguise this and so pass the text off as his own.
You reference a second post from 16:24, which you seem to feel supports your argument. It does not.
The 16:24 post is a question, born of ignorance. There is a post at 14:56 which similarly belies a lack of certainty on the same subject.
Bookending a piece of technical writing with questions, which the author of the primary text would clearly know the answer to, is not the action of a plagiarist.
With specific reference to the post at 16:14 and 16:11 you go on to say:
"You have just copied direct from Petrowiki, changing a few words here and there to make it look like your own work."
Yet the text is present in its entirety, no words have been removed, no attempt has been made to disguise its source, nor adjustments made to alter its style in order to claim ownership.
Over the twin post, spanning around 4000 characters, the only embellishment of any kind is the addition of a mere two words, "sand" and "jet", inserted simply to clarify a point, certainly nothing matching your description of modification with intent to deceive.
Imo it is your own post that seeks to deceive, fueled by an obvious displeasure at being challenged over the likely timing of various Ops events.
Hi Keith,
I too thank you for the significant contribution you make to this board.
With regards to your speculation about a small capital raise after the flow test results, to fund drilling deeper into the triassic. I wonder if that may not be necessary as the company may have already agreed a prepayment facility in its Heads of Terms with Afriquia Gaz.
Reabold Resources, a tiny UK O&G company last week announced such a deal with Gunver.
"....The HoA also provides for a potential prepayment by Gunvor for a portion of the first five years of deliveries, with such amounts subject to prepayment being a total of approximately 66,000 tonnes of LNG, or 999,000 MWh. The average forward Italian PSV gas price for the years 2025-2030 is currently approximately €30 / MWh. The prepayment is conditional on agreeing definitive transaction documentation and LNEnergy obtaining the required permits to construct and operate the LNG production facility."
Time will tell. AIMHO
PRD are closer to delivery of gas and have a significantly greater resource.
My opinion the rig is just running behind schedule was always going to be tight for prd to drill in the amendment extension period and not getting the extension in a timely manner compounded the problem. Was obvious from the last presentation
Just checked the Morocco.section of the website - seems a little aged!!!!
RNS to go there for further information. Blimey
Thank you i had not realized that it had been tried on other rigs and people got badly burnt. explains a lot.
Ibiza
Several years ago two management consultants from the North East struck on the bright idea of building a couple of semi sub rigs in Huddersfield/Hull way. These are much more complex than SV-101 but the lenders lost hundreds of millions.
I'd imagine SV-101 has quite a lead time to construct and would cost in the tens of millions to build let alone getting a consortium of experts together to ensure the correct design spec and construction capability.
Often order books are filled well in advance and few are built speculatively.
Alternatively, anyone here have the wherewithal & fancy going into the modular mobile drilling rig fabrication business ??
Because after nearly 3 years painstaking analysis....I think I've identified a gap in the market.....
I am going to ask a silly question here but if this rig is so good and so useful and everyone, well at least 4 businesses are after it at the same time, why is there only one of it around. I would have thought they would least one more.
Noddy, if you offered me a single bus fare to be free from you, I'd snap your hand off...
GRH...you talk in riddles, as usual, are you communicating with F&M from beyond, if so please consider the poor fellows struggle coming down the mountain each time with those heavy tablets.
For all your hyper bullish comments of jam tomorrow over the years I firmly believe that without them we would now be exactly where we are SP wise without them.
Tmh now you are beginning to rave, paranoid even. At no point have I ever claimed O and G industry experience, just another investor albeit a very cautious and sceptical one.
There are very few directors in this 'colourful' business that I would lend a single bus fare to.
Keith, I am so glad there is some focus on the OIL/CONDENSATE on our license.
I have never felt enough focus/credit has been given to this possible asset.
Any idea what PG/Lonny’s focus might be re the other 29 possible targets within our license area.
Cheers MEM
Great post, @Keith. Meaty, with a personal opinion attached. Respect.
The scenario depends 100% on the Sandjet testing doing the job intended, with the results confirmatory of the drilling assumptions. Not sure what "cos" factor to apply to that possibility. 90%+?
Why go to the cost of commissioning a document to officially increase the gcos? It doesn't improve the actual cos, and as we are fully funded, we don't need to 'big up' or promote. In fact, some have suggested PG is deliberately slow playing his hand.
Agree, however i never personally made insults Keith, i just asked questions and posted what my views were, differing to yours in some aspects ….just like chariot ( where i also hold shares , a similar amount to here ) we are now at the time where enough has been said covering most every negative and positive of every aspect , opinion and view and the only thing that actually matters now is hard proof and facts , which will only come when we commence operations and release the results..
I have a simple philosophy - if people are nice and polite to me, I will be polite and helpful in return. If they poke at me with a sharp stick, I will take it from them and smack them over the head with it. A distinct improvement in this board today, long may it remain so.
Why what news do you think we will get before August?
You're so transparent, Fred.
Roll on August then for the next potential positive news .
@keithoz, thanks for explaining, … even though you have been horrible to me ,I have upticked that post. !
@TheBold. To be 'official', it would need to be in an ITR or CPR, which cost a lot of time and money to produce. In my opinion, and I recall that of Jimmy's, the ITR was conservative in the extreme. See Appendix D for details - as an example of under-selling MOU-NE, they used as base case the porosity and thickness seen in TAF-1X, drilled 50km away into different rock type in a different structure - (8% and 18m respectively, I would expect 15+% and 250m. Jimmy in his post below suggested that source (and presumably also charge) to be already proven. If that is the case, removing just those two risks immediately raises the gcos to 32%. For balance. my main concern with this prospect remains that carbonate reefs can have variable reservoir characteristics, and a single borehole may not be representative of the whole structure. I have previously said here that I would not sell any shares until the earlier of 1. Paul effectively selling them for me by selling out of Morocco, or 2. after at least 4 holes had been drilled into MOU-NE. That is still my intention, but of course that should not necessarily be anyone else's plan.
Thanks Keith.
Hopefully a good flow test will result in a re rating of the share price.
I hope a long flow test occurs sufficient to prove gas below the structural spill point and hence help to proove a stratigraphic trap closure.
Jimmy
Keith
An excellent post and what many of us have posited as a way forward in terms of prove flow for CNG then sign GSA with upfront payment or complete a raise.
The technical element around depth is newer to me in terms of analysis and seems like a good option. Particularly being funded to do multiple drills.