Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Could you point me to this clause in the contract, was this mentioned in the recent report either?
A test they knew was likely to fail is price sensitive and has to be communicated. If a deadline is approaching that could cause a breach in contract this is also price sensitive and needs communicating. Neither of these things happened.
Zebra
They thought the guns would work, otherwise they would have been forced to mention that they were using equipment that was not up to the job. They failed due to the formation damage being worse than expected, no conspiracy nothing to do with timelines. The rns was the same as many companies issue when something has not gone to plan. The turd was rolled in glitter and the failure was attempted to be passed off as data gathering due to wrong equipment.
I would sell if I thought they had spent hundreds of thousands for no reason or that the Morrocan authorities had forced them to do this. Wasting money on a flawed test is in neither prd or Morrocan authorities benefit.
Two and a half years ago Mou 1 was completed. Plenty of time to complete testing. The fault of scrambling around so close to a deadline lies solely at Paul's door. Stop making excuses for poor management. You are also claiming that Paul with all his experience has been duped by a third party. Did he not check and sign off on the analysis before spending hundreds of thousands on a ten day program. are you claiming he is party to this?
Accusing the company of leaking results allowing some to sell is treading on dangerous ground. I would stop posting before you land yourself in trouble.
They were expecting 8" of formation damage( signed of by Pg 40+ experience) the guns were rated to 12". We can all agree that 12" is larger than 8" putting to bed the undersized argument.
The formation damage was greater than 12" leaving the option of Pg 40+ years experience admitting he got it wrong or claiming in hindsight that although he never mentioned it before he knew it would fail.
He choose the latter because the Pg never makes mistakes.
Bold claims that Paul withheld information about the testing program being flawed and using undersized guns I assume you have reported the company to the relevant authorities. They did state yesterday that they expected the "undersized" guns to work so maybe you are wrong.
They also have had 2 plus years to do some testing to meet the Guercif Agreement, so the company only has themselves to blame for this and not some shadowy third party.
Perforating being the second option is a red herring and has only surfaced due to it failing. They even stated in yesterday's RNS that their analysis showed it was expected to work. They have mentioned perforating numerous times in RNS and even in presentations before audiences.
Testing was always a two pronged approach with perforating and sandjetting used for the most formation damage/ unconsolidated sands. Disingenuous posters are trying to promote the narrative that it was a rushed job with underpowered equipment to disguise the fact that it was a failure.
The question about testing Mou 1 is a relevant one. if testing had identified the formation damage could the drilling mud at the subsequent wells have been adjusted to prevent the damage. Failure to test could be a costly mistake and needs explaining.
It's not taking one section out of context. The increase in formation damage to what was expected is a change, the post claimed nothing had changed. If the best candidates have damage in excess of 12" then it's possible the areas with more damage are too badly damaged to test. I do not know if this is the case, but neither do management as they do not know the extent of the damage. Hence increased risk and uncertainty.
Anyone that has read the RNS and thinks nothing has changed should not be investing in these types of stocks. The RNS is quite clear on what has changed. They were expecting 8" of formation damage, they have perforated 12" and are still encountering reservoir damage. That's a minimum of 50% increase a clearly significant change and they have still not found the exact extent. There are possible sections to badly damaged even for sandjetting as these were the best candidates for the perforating guns.
Risk and uncertainty has increased whether posters want to believe or not, hence the fall. It's not an over reaction or the nasty trolls, it's as straightforward as that.
BCE managed to source, book and use the sandjet equipment in less than two months, over the Christmas period.
Mou4 was completed in July ample time as shown by BCE to complete testing using sandjet.
A bad workman blames his tools, the issue with the guns only became apparent after they did not work. Surely Paul would have advised loyal shareholders if he knew it was unlikely to flow using this method? Managed expectations rather than appear to be backtracking in the event of a failure.
Hard to disagree with that. There has been a slow (and painful) realisation over the past year that the current team are not as good as they seem to think. If Mou 1 had been tested in a timely manner this problem would have been spotted earlier and maybe the following wells drilling program could have been modified to prevent this. Instead of one damaged well we now have three as a result.
Fresh blood needs to be added to shake the current team out of their complacency and comfort zones.
The testing has been a shambles for two years. Multiple missed dates, now formation damage appears to be an issue that was rarely mentioned if at all.
Arrogance is fine if it is backed up by performance, Paul needs to start delivering results. They also need to hire more people, this small team is not up to the job.
Yes it's not market sensitive unless it's different. Here one with the sand jetting in action
https://twitter.com/BeaconEnergyPlc/status/1752294041713094956
Another delay brushed under the carpet by the usual suspects. It may only be a short delay but it again impacts credibility.
Resource numbers seem to be declining despite the wells exceeding expectations which is odd. The p10 numbers which the results suppased from the previous CPR were significantly higher.
It would help if PRD could get the planning right though, struggling to get the equipment on site repeatedly is poor.
Been investing in these companies for years GKP, Xcite and the Falklands and many more since then, so well aware of issues with wells and delays. Never known a company struggle so badly with logistics especially when others in the country seem to manage it. If there were issues with the testing then fair enough but flipping between sandjet and normal perforating and failing to get all the equipment on site together is poor project management. To have to cancel testing once because a piece of equipment failed to turn up in time I can grudgingly accept, but for this to happen twice that's bad management.
The testing process is very similar which is what I am talking about. Both companies planned to perforate and flow test the wells. SDX achieved this with little fuss, PRD are currently on their fourth attempt.
Unless of course you know of differences in the testing process? The sleeping giant that is often posted on here compares flow rates from the Rharb basin so using a well test process from this area should be similar.
Never said the CEO had to be there but if problems arise it probably helps if they are in the same time zone and not wandering around a field thousands of kms away. Unsure why they are travelling back or ROB constant updates that they are on site matter if they can solve everything by text. 100% focus on starting testing which has suffered numerous delays is probably more valuable than being in Trinidad at the minute imo.
Monty python could not write this. Imagine planning to start testing in Morocco and having a site visit in Trinidad in the same week. Thousands of km apart, genius planning.
SDX has shown how straight forward well testing can be in Morocco if management possesses focus and clarity.
The well testing is the same though, the size of the prize only comes into play for production.
So why can SDX execute permitting, mobilising equipment, perforating and testing in Morocco in months and PRD cannot?