Member Info for HeidHoncho

Gwynwin, clearly you didn’t factor the previous share consolidation into your figures.

‘grown 13 times in worth” ….. I think not.

It beggars belief doesn’t it.

JR90, you do realise that the £843,855 that you are referring to is merely the nominal value of shares that they can issue without requesting further shareholder approval.

The BoD have been authorised to issue a nominal value of shares.

Given that the nominal share value is 0.01p, giving them the authority to issue a further 8,438,550,000 (yes, that’s 8.43855 Billion) shares.

Given the current SP is circa 0.071p, what price do you think they would require to place the shares at just now if they tried to get a placing away ?

The 7% threshold was passed on the 9th January, and the 9% threshold was passed on the 21st January.

It is really tardy notification of thresholds being passed, it is not representative of any recent purchasing.

You have just got to love the nuances of the English language, where apparently imperceptible differences between two separate words can lead to such a wide gulf in the ultimate end results.

Words such as, “viable” and “credible”, “possible” and “likely”, “expected” and “anticipated”, , and the list goes on and on.

The utilisation of each determines whether one can be hoisted by one’s own petard, or not, so to speak when considering the legitimacy of a statement utilised in an RNS or similar.

Take for instance a simple statement, such as, ample funds to cover its share of the planned drilling and testing campaign.

The utilisation of the word “ample” gives no definitive metric to base a personal determination on, and nor does the utilisation of the word “planned” give any solace to the determination whether sufficient funds currently exist to cover industry recognised budgetary contingencies for unplanned events, which are all too common within the industry.
Such that an individual can conduct their own determination as to whether a further fund raising would be required were things not to go to plan.

We’re one so inclined, I suppose one could postulate that were one to build a house made of cards, where the walls are adorned by numerous mirrors, and the premises were also full of smoke, that in itself would give cause for concern to those who may wish to invest in such a venture.

IMHO, obviously.

“Too (sic) many tankers” ………….. for gas ?!?!

Basur4 not Basutoland .

Grrrrrr at Apple autocorrect.

"Pinarova's prospectivity, potential success case volumes and modest drilling costs make it an attractive short-fuse project worth pursuing. We are actively supporting our operator AME to get Pinarova-1 drilled as soon as practicable in 2023 and, if successful, either Pinarova-2 and/or a Basur-4 appraisal well drilled from a new site 1 km west of the Basur-1 discovery."

“if successful” …….. that doesn’t sound overly confident.

The clear message that they are sending out there is, IF Pinarova1 is unsuccessful then neither Pinarova2 nor Basutoland will be drilled.

Does that mean then that they think a lack of success on Pinarova1 will turn the Turkey op into a complete bust, and they will pack up stumps and move on ?

As they have clearly stated above that either Pinarova2 and/or Basur4 will only be frilled if Pinarova1 is a success, and given they have never mentioned any other prospects then that mean there is no other fallback plan in Turkey.

Depending on the current mud weight being utilised, and how close that brings them to the fracture gradient, it may not be possible to merely increase the RPM of the drill string with a view to clearing the wellbore of cuttings, as an increase in RPM has a correlative impact on the ECD, and that has to be an area of great concern if you have a mud weight that is already near the limits that the formation can stand prior to inducing losses.

The kick off depth (whipstock) is not at TVD it is significantly higher up the existing wellbore.

IF the water ingress is from one of the shallower zones wouldn’t that compromise the ability of the lower producing zones to flow as anticipated ?

For example, in layman’s terms, picture a straw of say 5000 feet long (the longer the straw the greater the negative effect of fluid in it) hanging vertically, if the straw is empty and you blow up it you will rapidly (if not instantaneously) see a similar output at the top of the straw.

Then picture the straw having a quantity (the greater the quantity, the greater the impact will be) of water in it, then try blowing up the straw, and picture if you would require to put more effort into blowing (than in the empty straw analogy above) to achieve the same output.

Hydrostatics, you’ve just got to love the principle.

IMHO.

Cheetah.

Spots.

Nuff said.

So, an error on Kemexon’s part with regards to the date that they crossed the threshold requiring a TR1 to be issued, as their allotment of shares weren’t planned to be admitted to the market until the 23rd December.

The TR1 cannot have been caused by an increase in their holding of shares due to having participated in the placing.

The threshold (requiring the TR1) was breached on the 19th December, whereas the non conditional portion of the placement shares was not admitted until the 23rd December.

They could however have made a mistake, as they would have been aware on the 19th December of how many shares they had secured in the placement, but they should not have stated that the date that they crossed the threshold for requiring a new TR1 as being the 19th December, it should have stated that they breached the threshold on the 23rd December.

If it is not an error on their part, then to have breached the threshold on the 19th December they must have purchased the circa 89 million shares on/off market.

IMHO

Banner, the most recent arbitration award that I can remember seeing was in about August of this year, in which Rockhopper took the Italian government to arbitration.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/RKH/successful-arbitration-outcome-ghfoaxbww0fd2dx.html

Granted, Rockhopper are an oil & gas exploration/production company and not a mining concern (however, it could equally be argued that we are not a mining company either), but nevertheless it is an extractor of a natural resource, so there is a high degree of similarity to our potential (were it to get that far) arbitration claim.

If memory serves me correctly, the Rockhopper asset was not that significant (certainly nowhere near as valuable as our asset would be valued at we’re it to go into production), yet they still managed to secure an arbitration amount of circa 190 million Euros.

For the sake of accuracy, the award is currently under appeal by the Italian government, but this appeal is credibly believed to just be a delaying tactic with little if any hope for success.

Nevertheless, I do feel that it indicates an alternate arbitration award to that portrayed in your post, in which the award was both at a level far in excess of any sunk costs in readying the asset for production, and was also a not inconsiderate amount for an asset that had a significantly lower revenue potential than our asset would likely have.

Interesting point that you make regarding the domiciled country of the company’s holding the licenses.
Given that the holding companies are domiciled in Mexico could it be argued that the production from those companies are indeed already encapsulated under the T-MEC treaty, and as such there could be no legal argument that the JV bringing Sonora online would be out with that treaty ?
That in itself may allow AMLO an opportunity to save face were the Sonora development be permitted to proceed unencumbered, yet still allow the commitments/promises made to be met, and preclude them from being in breach of their existing constitution regarding previously awarded mining licences.

I agree with you, with the scant hard facts available to all just now, and with there being total radio silence from our B.o.D., that any discussion on here, from any of the posters, is nothing more than conjecture.
Though that in itself should not be a bar for discussions to occur, as only through discussion do we learn, and permits everyone to express their viewpoints, whether we agree with them or not.
Subject that is, that the discussion is conducted in a courteous and civilised manner, whereby the topic under discussion is discussed (and given the recent World Cup final that has just been completed, it is excusable to paraphrase here …… “play the ball, not the man”.

IMHO

Not sure that the Mexican government have boxed clever with regards to Sonora and any attempted nationalisation of the same, should that be the route that they wish to go down.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the Ganfeng/KDNC JV already have have a mining (not merely an exploration) license for the JV acreage ?

That being said, any attempts to rescind that license, or attempts to retake ownership of the acreage through nationalisation, on terms unacceptable to the JV, would likely lead to the issue being taken to international arbitration by the JV members.

Granted, that is a very long (years) and drawn out process, and not one that would likely be SP accretive until resolved, but on the plus side I think the Mexican government have dropped the ball here by telling the world how great an asset that Sonora is.

When it comes to calculating the award in an international tribunal they attempt to calculate what the potential loss would be.
At this stage the defendants (in this case the JV partners) would attempt to show how large a loss it would be to them were they to lose possession of the asset due to nationalisation, whereas the other party (in this case the Mexican government) would attempt to portray it as a relatively worthless tract of land.
To that end, the Mexican government may well have shot themselves in the foot here by being all Billy Big Baws about what a globally important asset that Sonora will be, in ADVANCE of potential international arbitration claims.

I’m not sure, but isn’t the potential scale of the claim based on projected loss when it comes to making the award, and not merely a level commensurate to the level of costs already sank into the project by the claimants.

Yet again, I’m not sure of the beliefs detailed above, but never the less a subject worthy of research and consideration/discussion were there to be concerns that the government might try to deny the JV from progressing.

IMHO in any case.

And in a supply/demand scenario, where there is no demand, that could also be equally identified through a lack of volume.

IMHO obviously.

“Just a little more volume here” ?

No kidding, there has been less than £1000 traded so far this morning.

Comical.

“Increase in waste tankers”

Agreed, with a 40% water cut in every barrel produced, not to mention we are now into the wetter winter months (equating to an increase in waste water associated with site drainage, and waste water from the bunds on site), I would concur that the likely waste to crude tanker ratio departing the site will be around parity, or perhaps even exceeding parity as the season gets wetter, whereby more barrels of waste will be departing the site than there will be barrels of crude.

IMHO obviously, but never the less logically based on known facts

How many trip outs have they conducted since setting the whipstock ?

Without having sight of the drilling programme the following is merely an educated guesstimate, but I would have anticipated the following steps.

1) trip in and mill the window, perhaps going a couple of feet into the formation.
2) trip out for next BHA
3) trip in with new BHA, possibly including a tri-cone bit, water melon mills, and potentially an under reamer.
4) either prior to pulling out of hole, or prior to drilling ahead with the next BHA (likely to be the former), to conduct an FIT formation integrity test or an LOT leak off test (though given that it is a known formation, from the original wellbore, an FIT should be sufficient).
4a) Potentially (depending on what they have seen over the shaker screens) they will need to run in and perform a junk run, if there is a concern that the milling operation has left junk in the hole.
5) trip out of hole for directional drilling assembly.
6) run in with directional drilling assembly, and depending on the programme perform one of the following.
6a) drill to TD then pull out of hole for a clean up BHA prior to conducting wireline sampling
6b) depending on geology perhaps already have planned a further trip out of hole to perform a bit change (this will be dependent on distance to TD and anticipated bit atrition, but without sight of the drilling programme whether this is a planned trip out for a bit change or not is an unknown), prior to tripping back in and drilling to TD, followed by the same clean up run and wireline sampling in 6a)
6c) without having knowledge of the drilling programme this is merely floated as an option, but there may be a requirement/plan to set an intermediate casing prior to drilling to TD, and were that to be the case, then there aren’t enough characters left to me in a single post to give an overview as to all the potential steps that would entail …. lol

As stated previously, I have had no sight of the drilling programme, nor how many trips they have already conducted to date since they tripped in to set the whipstock and mill the window, it is merely offered up an educated overview of the potential sequence so that expectations aren’t wildly exceeded.

IMHO, obviously.