Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Vauch was very against the bod, and now they have given the bod their support but what has changed for them to be positive, have they given them a good indication that they will get financing it’s just a matter of time…and they are believing that after 2 years of saying so..I am more happy that they are leaning towards being positive that makes me positive as well but it’s looks like to me they have been woo’ed by them or maybe not the case but would like some conversations with them why this is not so, if you have the time to do so, thanks.
I don’t think it’s delayed, the pdf is the preposed delay that has been requested by Hoodoo’s Lawyers on the 1st June, the last page has PREPOSED at the top and forms the response and a sheet for them to sign if they choose to agree.
TMC Capital is a subsidiary of PetroTeq.
“TMC Capital assigned to Valkor operating rights under the three Asphalt Ridge NW leases at subsurface depths below 300 feet, with TMC Capital retaining a right to participate, at up to a 50% working interest, in any operation conducted by Valkor at the deeper intervals. Under this agreement, each party will have the right to participate, at up to a 50% joint ownership basis, in any new oil sands processing plant constructed on lands covered by the Asphalt NW leases.“
https://ir.petroteq.com/news-presentations/press-releases/detail/406/petroteq-announces-exchange-of-temple-mountain-leases-for
Crownos when I google search the extract you posted it takes me to the lease terms of PetroTeq which they have the surface mining rights too, Valkor originally acquired the leases from SITLA and assigned the mining rights to PetroTeq in their land swap for the Temple mountain leases but they had the subsurface rights on the leases.
I guess dogm and SITLA must have missed this too then, it’s hoodoo’s right to object though as that’s the process, but their lease terms exclude bitumen and asphaltum which is exactly what Greenfield are going for with full support from everyone else.
Only the experts would know the answer to that, immobile heavy oil will obviously need some form of unconventional used techniques to extract, I think the main difference between the formations are that the asphalt ridge and Rimrock members are sand and I think the other leases that TomCo hold over 12,000 acres are shale, so maybe the shale will have better permeability and porosity (be able to move more freely) which will help the extraction recovery but overall the well completion will be different, but the same co2 or steam injection you might imagine could help reduce the viscosity, the injection techniques involve recover some of the best ultimate recovery’s in oil extraction.
The shareprice was at 0.36p 5 weeks ago and 5 months ago…so what’s the difference now?
We had the warrant yesterday we retained the warrants today.
If the money is needed and whether it will get the in-situ project going or strengthening hand in discussions… I really don’t care if Santa Claws lends the money..
When the funding is finalized we will be in a very good place as a shareholders that’s the bottom line..
The operation has been approved on a state level so it’s the highest level approved by the Senate, the drilling applications however is a standard process, which takes into account where you are drilling in consideration to the position, depth, site layout, the well design where the aquifers are the roads in and out, safety plan, whether the leases are in good standing that other operations in area within a mile is informed of the drilling plan, all of this will be done by Tom Suchoski from Stantec this is all necessary work to perform in the operations but are basically a formality, and have been in process for 8 weeks.
Vauch here’s a tweet to what was said and I’ve cropped a video in the reply to myself, the video still on YouTube 26.10.22
https://twitter.com/fadec92/status/1592795595223470081?s=46&t=R2YkGAA9rNTQFeJc6v52YQ
Can you elaborate on what JP said about Pqe as not aware of this? Thanks.
Just to clarify with Vauch’s post with someone mentioning the 50% recovery I think that was me that mentioned that figure, and it was a very useful piece of data to give away.
The figure comes from the board meeting when a member of the Utah board asks Douglas Hamilton the Chief Geologist what the recovery would be and Douglas thought the question was asked in relation to the Ultimate Recovery EUR factor.
Personally this data is a very desirable to an investor as it gives a clue the how much can be recovered in the project or across a formation basin and is an extremely high recovery rate, look up EOR recovery factors compare to other unconventional recovery techniques and you will find that these are the best recovery factors for oil recovery in the industry…
“but he said he thinks it can be over 50%”
With other recovery terms being used, there’s a link below…so when we talk or should I say Steve Byle of Valkor talks of 30Billion Barrels and using the EUR recovery factor then it’s easy to get excited and hence my thoughts on how other companies 3 bag with wells that can in total only recovery say 10% of target formation this project should not be underestimated which I think it currently is based on what we know now today.
Always said it investors are a lazy bunch but this should be talked about more often or promoted as the project economic recovery is very useful information.
EUR Ultimate Recovery
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/estimated-ultimate-recovery.asp
EOR Recovery
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery
The huff-n-puff process
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.803540/full
Company related I would have thought, I’m sure both of you did….it would be good to get some news, that’s all we’ve had is Valkor loan repayment and warrant sales which has ended so I’m hoping the next one is a very positive one.