Member Info for Fyoz

"The 12 years+ I've been invested here is hardly "a few"."

We know, you tell us on a weekly basis 🙄

"I'm not really bothered whether the share price is 1.5p or 2.2p on a given day."

I'm sort of in agreement in as much as I'm not selling until we're north of at least 20p. However, I'd like the SP to increase so that it proves a bigger hurdle to someone taking a decent position on the cheap. That's my only real concern now, that we get taken out too cheaply

Red

I've been assuming $10 per barrel as a royalty. I think that would be fair for a process that converts $43 bitumen into $92 MSAR

40 barrels per day from 60 wells = $8.7m

Equates to approx 0.4p earnings per share

Apply a P/E ratio of 25 and you get a fair value SP of 10p

Doesn't allow for overhead costs but the 40 barrels per day is probably conservative anyway

Just a quick illustration to show how quickly we can get to 10p, as the market is forward looking, and once we can show that 60+ wells is achievable the demand for shares will accelerate

" I find it hard to see how we will get to 10p"

Err, revenue

By my calculations, about 70 Valkor wells producing 40 barrels per day will provide enough revenue to support an SP of about 10p (using a PE ratio of 25). You could argue a PE ratio of at least 50 is more appropriate

Probably our LTH's 'I've never sold a single share' (that's true just a couple of million at a time) traders buying back in. The 'pump' will start soon, 'feelings' of imminent signatures on contracts, positive emails from IR etc . . . 🤣

"I don't think there are any points of contention."

Just because you don't think there are any points of contention doesn't mean there aren't, there may well be. Don't undestand why your labouring (correct spelling) this point?

"So claiming ANYTHING as being a fact behind the time it's taking, is false and misleading."

He didn't, he asked is it conceivable? And also said it's just a thought. Nothing was claimed or stated

1.3 trillion barrels total resource. If they can only extract 10% of it, and use it just to pave roads, it would cover about 6 million miles of '2-lane blacktop' (assuming 6" depth of bitumen, without stones or other aggregate). Utah only has 3,658 miles of state roads, so they need to convert a lot of that bitumen into MSAR, or else the chain gangs need to go on overtime 🙄

Colorado has 1.5 trillion barrels resource, and 9,100 miles of road

"Any hint of progress and the snout in the trough happens again"

I must admit that was my first reaction

Looking into it a bit deeper though, they appear to be annual awards, decided by the remuneration commitee. Last year's have just lapsed and are replaced by these. The timing is unfortunate as we're still trying to get signatures on paper. I also wish the targets were a bit more of a challenge, but they're probably based on some pre-arranged formula, some kind of KPI gobbledygook calculated from the SP at the time. I suppose for a commercial company, 1.5 x the current SP would be seen as a challenging target. But these 2.5p options, probably way below most LTH's averages, seem like easy money. Oh well, let's get that first contract signed and all will be forgiven, by almost all of us anyway 🤣

"The whole purpose of Valkor is to supply MSC and the wider shipping industry"

Don't expect the Yanks to wait for MSC and the likes. There must be thousands of smaller craft, with engines out of warranty, that can use low sulphur MSAR as soon as it's available

"We need every project to develop"

I totally agree, and maybe the 'forget' part is not the correct parlance. What we're dealing with in Utah, junior oil explorers with a massive appetite for success. No team of corporate lawyers, no executive boards that need reams of documents to make a decision. Valkor a gunning for this. In contrast, with MSC and OCP we have possible conflicts of interest (MSC/Cargill/Maersk), and also incumbent fuel suppiers who need to be displaced. For all we know our partners are already locked into lengthy supply agreements. Aside from lengthy LONO's on both variants, we need to organise production and bunkering facilities to supply MSC. OCP is probably more straightforward, but there's still the incumbent to displace

So, for me, Utah should now become the priority project. By all means we should support the other projects as necessary, but Utah will almost certainly now be our first commercial venture, and in my opinion should be valued and prioritised as such

"Forget the snails 🐌 of MSC and Morocco"

Absolutely nailed it Tuckman

Anyone who's worked in America or for an American company, knows how aggressively they go after opportunities there. Lafayette/Valkor have first mover advantage here, and they will absolutely capitalise on it. The cat's out of the bag now, and the race is on, exciting times . . .

"It's a shame the markets don't see the potential here yet"

I'm pretty sure we'll be on someone's radar very soon. Someone must be asking how you get from $43 per barrel bitumen to $92 per barrel WTI+$15 without refining. Sooner or later the penny will drop, that QED is the key to unlocking the massive potential profits. Not just for Valkor, but other licencees who want to get a slice of this action. It doesn't take a genius to work out we're hugely undervalued, and the easy option to get a big return on your investment

Good point, I suppose I should really deduct about £3m for running costs from the revenue

They're only ballpark figures, and just to show the huge potential in the tar sands prospects

"can you help me with your PE 25 why 25"

I think at this stage in Quadrise's development the growth potential is massive, but I like to apply plenty of conservatism to my calculations. Rolls Royce, an established brand, has a PE of 15. Tesla, with potentially very strong growth prospects, has a PE of 62. I'm comforable with 25, but you could easily argue 50 or more for QED

"This now allows us to proceed with our initial planned 100+ well drilling program"

100 wells producing 40 barrels per day equates to annual revenue for us of around £11.4m (@$10 per barrel)

That gives an EPS of about 0.6p. Use whatever PE ratio you think is appropriate, but a PE ratio of just 25 gives us a fair value SP of 16p. And, this is from the 'initial' drilling programme

Valkor/Lafayette have 2880 acres at their disposal, which, in theory could support over 1000 wells at 2.5 acres per well

2880 acres equals 4.5 sq miles, the Uinta Basin is approx 250 sq miles

The total inplace resource for the Uinta Basin is estimated at 1.32 trillion barrels. This is only slightly lower than the estimated 1.53 trillion barrels for the adjacent Piceance Basin, Colorado, to the east, which is thought to be the richest oil shale deposit in the world

For those that still think we need a marine project to make our company truly profitable, run through the numbers again

Give it a rest, it's good news day for once

DoN "Also, as I posted some time ago, when they hit 100 barrels of production, they will receive additional funding from one of their key investors, which is an important milestone"

Massively significant for us as well. If we can negotiate something like $10 per barrel royalty, the 100 barrels target would bring in revenue of approx $300k per month for Quadrise, which is pretty much break even. A few years ago we would never have envisaged that our (potentially) first commercial project would come from saturated sandstone

So what will our SP be when we're completely de-risked, with boundless opportunities ahead of us?

So, they can sell bitumen and make $8 a barrel, or, for an extra say, $15 capex ($10 royalty to us), they can sell WTI and make $50 a barrel 🤔

Unanimously