Member Info for Helpful

Vauch, they don't know the exact funding requirement yet.

Once they have done the FEED, they need to do what is called a banking feasibility study (which the FEED forms part of). The feasibility study will have the drilled down numbers in it: capex, opex, working capital requirement, pricing, offtakes, ranging (changing the value of inputs and outputs) etc.

The number they give is a finger in the air number till the feasibility is done.

No reason why they can't do any equity element at the JV level. For larger funders, they would likely prefer to be at the JV level anyway since it gives them a direct line of sight and insulation from PLC costs.

Once all the ducks are in a row, it will be clear that there is plenty to feed everyone and I suspect both Tomco and PQE will have potential partners lining up.

Last year PQE was saying $10mil per $10k bopd.

I took out another spread this morning on TOMCO on the dip.

DYOR

Have you heard of COVID? It slows things down a bit. Victoria keeps going into Lockdowns and moving stuff across borders in Africa can be an issue,

One good thing that of course goes over peoples' heads: is Juno calling for tenders for kit. It means that they are getting on with Mt Mason. The cashflow from Mt Mason is intended to fund bringing the Mt Ida magnetite project into production. Re the Mt Mason project, Juno wants to inprove the resource and the life of the mine. I think we will get news re Mt Bevan and the isolation zone to the north soon and news on exploration in the intermediate zone of hematite extending into the Mt Ida tenements. The former increases the resource and the life of the mine by a substantial amount and the hematite exploration should trigger our royalty payments from Anglo Pacific. Juno needs the action so that it gets a better valuation, which it will do if it shows that the life of the Mt Mason project is more than ten years.

DYOR

Salinger you are a real saddo.

"WTI standard" which you referred to doesn't exist, WTI does exist. You stated that PQE had added enough solvent to the output to to take it to WTI Standard and that the cost of adding the solvent was about $15 per barrel.

PQE and TOMCO have stated the API, it is just slightly higher than 10 degrees. So not bitumen and nowhere near WTI.

What PQE and TOMCO have achieved is pricing close to WTI not WTI output. You are in the ridiculous position where in one post you are claiming the output is bitumen and the next it is "WTI standard".

PQE has confirmed that the output contains about 5% solvent. Solvent is not added subsequent to the extraction process, it is part and parcel of the process.

On your pricing of $15 per barrel of output for the solvent, it would be costing about $300 a barrel for the solvent as an input. Separately, the solvent cost is included in the the less than $30 a barrel production cost it is not an add on cost. So you are contending that the solvent cost is 50% of the production cost.

Good luck with QFI. If it keeps going down, I might buy back in on a spread. BTW just so you know: I don't hold shares in TOMCO but I do have a spread and warrants. I do have shares and warrants in PQE.

DYOR

Sorry Salinger but you have issues. I will address this properly tomorrow except to say that there is no such thing as "WTI standard".

As to the Yahoo post, it is in the public domain so I posted it. Do I need to run everything past you before posting? I didn't comment in any way, so what exactly is your issue? Maybe it is the declining QFI price?

https://in.news.yahoo.com/petroteq-energy-know-canadian-oil-075445903.html

Salinger, I know you want to promote QFI and MSAR as the saviour of Petroteteq and Tomco but it is not true.

MSAR is an option for the plant(s); no more and no less.

The plant(s) will be and the test plant is profitable without MSAR. The plants will have a number of output options: Asphalt, crude, No 6 diesel and MSAR. They want the built in flexibility so that they can take advantage of seasonal and opportunistic pricing opportunities.

It may or may not be the case that MSAR is worth using. No one will know until the QFI test is run, then they kit out the plant to run MSAR and then do some test runs. So it is a little way off.

I have no issues to grind with QFI or MSAR: I have made good money trading in and out of QFI on spreads.

DYOR

Bitumen is 10 degrees and below. The output is over 10 degrees and therefore not bitumen. It is a matter of definition. It is bitumen in the ground but once processed it is not.

I am not confusing anything. All in production cost is less than $30. Transport costs are variable and it depends on the offtaker and the product. The solvent is not added to the output post production so it can be transported. The solvent is used in the extraction process and is a residual in the output. They can operate the plant to optimise the amount of residual solvent.

I might get AB to double confirm it when he WhatsApps me later.

DYOR

Bob, no need for refineries if MSAR is used. The output will be sold straight off the plant to the end user. Same if they don't use MSAR and instead cook the output to No6 diesel.

Looks like we might be about to tick up again.

It would be good to get to 0.75p before the announce the details of Tunisia.

There is no requirement or NEED to use MSAR. The production plants will be economic without it. They might use it or might not. It will come down to the numbers.

The output is not bitumen, it is close to but not bitumen.

About 5% of the solvent remains in the output. On your pricing they would be paying $300 a barrel for the solvent. PQE has already stated that production costs are less than $30 a barrel all in.

They have already stated that they can produce No 6 diesel off the plant: in which case, no need to refine it or use MSAR.

Whether MSAR ends up being used or not will come down to the tests to be run by QFI and the economics. There is no NEED to use it but it may be that they decide to use it all the time, some of the time or not at all.

PS on the output from the Crown ore it is about 1.5 tons of sand per barrel of output and from the AR ore about 1.74 tons per barrel. So a bit more processing needs to be done per barrel from AR but on the other hand they have more sand to sell per barrel. Swings and roundabouts.

PPS two things that they want from future production plants is flexibility on the inputs and the outputs.

DYOR

https://twitter.com/SomaGoldCorp/status/1405484143136460804?s=20

How about these things are done in stages and until the last steps are done, it ain't done. So you can everything agreed but it takes a while to get the official paperwork processed. Another company I am in, had a deal agreed but it took six months for everything to be signed.

It happened a few years back. It got so bad ML got the BB operators to disclose the identity. There was 11 posters who turned out to be one person.

Ah Weylandyutani who understands nothing and has a ten year vendetta because he is down on his £3k investment.

Spelling and reading issues!

Lets the insults right: vultures!

I think you will find that vultures feed off dead bodies and not vibrant O&G companies with rising free cash flow and top notch assets on the way in. You never know you might make your "£100k" back.

DYOR

Lets hope. I have a lot warrants. If the price moves up and those warrants start getting exercised then it funds another deal for NTOG.

And thar she blows!

Lets hope this is the start of some upward movement.

I know about it but don't follow it except that we have some acreage nearby. I understand the issue in the past has been a lack of energy but this may have changed recently. Some license applications have been outstanding for a while and they may have blotted their copy book with the locals by being slow. I don't know this to be the case but it has been indicated to me.

There is a potential tie up between ECR re the acreage at Creswick and the RRAL acreage to the South licensed by RRAL plus we are competing for the contested licenses called Inner Ballarat. I suspect that RRAL reckons that there is only one serious competitor for the Inner Ballarat contested licenses and it is not ECR.

No position and not been in it. I know some people who have been in and have sold out. No axe to grind one way or the other. I hope they get good results at Ballieston.

DYOR

Looks like we are about to tick up again. Have we turned?