Hi Ducati2, I could not get that link to work, the following should be ok.
http://www.scotforth.com/index.php/scotforth/news/1-hydrocarbon-morocco
SG47
You really think that any comments on here about another company is going to lead to negotiations?
If a company wishes to negotiate the last place they would do so is by using some BB in order to "advertise" themselves.
Companies will only be able to enter into negotiations if they have a contact/"way in" into the other company and something that is valuable to that company, of course they will themselves want something out of any negotiations, I see nothing wrong in creating a win-win scenario where everyone benefits.
I suspect that any negotiations would have been ongoing for sometime, why? Because best practice is to look at and consider all sources of inforamtion, especially when you wish to enter into negotiations to sell a compnay. Not having that information can put you into a weaker negotiatiing position.
I am sure that you are aware of SWOT analysis, if you were to carry one out now on Sound I am sure that under weaknesses you would have to include, amongst other things, our knowledge and understanding of the TAGI due to the limitations and issues with the seismic.
Surely gaining extra information, if available, on the TAGI would come under opportunities and help to reduce the above mentioned weakness, or perhaps even eliminate it entirely.
HI Marrakeshreg
I don't think that it is quite as simple as the seismics failing, I think it is more along the lines that the seismic data is valuable but the usefulness on its own is limited. As has already been stated by Sound, it is unable to determine the permeability or porosity of a potential reservoir.
Brian is a highly respected and well qualified geologist, with plenty of experience in the oil and gas industry, however everyone needs some extra help sometimes, after all Sir Edmund Hillary did not climb Everest on his own, he needed the help of Tenzing Norgay.
I said before that I think Sound is effectively wildcatting the licence with three drills TE-8, 9 and 10. I do not mean to be derogatory to anyone at Sound it is just how, rightly or wrongly, I see the situation.
I just hope that TE-11 is not rushed and is thoroughly thought through before a decision is made on where to drill and on the back of what data.
I know JP has stated that three drills and that is it, I wonder if that is still the case if both 10 and 11 are both non-commercial?
I also wonder if Scotforth would forgo an upfront payment for a slightly larger % of profits on a success case?
If TE-11 is also a duster and no one wishes to buy the licence for an amount that is acceptable to Sound shareholders, and we do go in to production, maybe we will fund some extra drills using additional data, and those elusive hydrocarbons will at last be found and unlocked.
I don't think anyone is complaining about the risk, we all knew it was high.
What people are complaining about is the guidance given to shareholders on what each TCF was actually worth.
The fact that you guys come on here and state that we are alright even though you are underwater is of completely no use to those people are not alright.
Yes no one forced anyone to buy shares in this company but the number of shares bought would be considerably different in many cases had the comms from the company been less ambiguous.
Now people are hoping for a $9 GSA for a 20% uplift in the valuation as well as other aspects including BOT and FEED etc. which could also give rise to another 20% increase in the value of the share price.
The share is obviously very oversold at the moment and should be closer to 25p but I am guessing that the market has determined that the GSA will be at the low end.
The other really annoying thing is, is that there is commercial gas in the licence area outside of the TE-5 horst and all we are doing is using inadequate seismic on its own to try and determine the best places to drill.
I dearly hope that TE-10 comes in for the benefit of everyone but I am not holding my breath on this.
I suspect it will be a case of non-commercial gas shows.
Where does that leave us then?
I wonder how much gas they think they have at TE-8, I am sure that they siad they could get it to flow gas commercially but it would require too much effort.
Is this what JP means by saying that he would sell off the asset? (From memory Schlumberger were not interested in Sidi)
So sell it to Schlumberger, maybe in this scenario it does not matter as much whether or not the three (now two) drills find hydrocarbons as each drill even if unsuccesful will help in discovering more about the geology of Tendrara and will help in any future processing of seismic. Maybe a valutation has already been agreed depending upon a set of outcomes?
If JP had been clearer in his valuation of the company by fully explaining what he meant and not giving what currently appears to be misleading information, then he would not be receiving any complaints at all.
The investors, although not happy at TE-9 being a duster, would have acepted that as part and parcel of investing in this type of company, why?
Becuase when given a valuation of the company by the BoD then why should it be doubted? Why should it not be taken at face value that what is said is what is meant?
The amount invested would then of course, in some cases be significantly different to what was originally invested.
For instance if someone is prepared to risk/lose £10,000 and they have £100,000 to invest do they invest the lot or do they invest a precentage?
Well it will obviously depend upon the share price at the time they choose to invest.
Company guidance stated that 1 TCF is worth £1.50, and the TE-5 horst has 0.3 TCF recoverable, that should mean that the company has an asset worth approximately 50pps.
So if the share price is 50p an investor may well think that there is absolutley minimal downside, and only upside. So may well end up investing the lot, you may say fool on them, it is their own fault, they were the ones who decided to buy the shares no one forced them to, they should have carried out more research, basically it is their own fault and that they have no right to be harassing JP.
Well I disagree, people do have a right to complain, within reason, I of course do not condone any truly vile complaint.
Having said all that I hope that this does come good and I actually think that TE-10 will help bring suiccess to Sound even if it is a duster as information learnt will help with locating TE-11.
I thought I read it somewhere, Borderisimus went to the DD, this is what he wrote at 12:58 on Saturday:
"Jobbinscl, I discussed the gas seepage at TE10 with JC at the deep dive. The northern edge of the stratigraphic trap is bounded by the Trarid fault and it was along this line that the seepage was "seen" on the satellite data. Sampling results will hopefully confirm the presence of hydrocarbons because these were among the best leads provided by the satellite work."
So potentially there is some seepage detected by satellite imagery at TE-10. With the sensor being used to confirm this. So hopefully we do wait until the results of the sampling come back in a couple of weeks before drilling.
Apologise, no results back yet.
Smallsmile, who had travelled out to Morocco stated that Sound have employed a French firm to look at gas seepage at the TE-10 site using some form of sensors, the results won't be known until mid December.
He posted this on Friday at 17:56.
I realise that this is not 100% accurate as to there being a reservoir below but it does help to build confidence.
I wonder if they are going to wait until the results are back from the sampling before deciding to drill at TE-10?
It was from another poster on here, I am sure that they said that Sound had taken on a French company to test for seepage at both TE-9 and Te-10, and that seeps had been found at TE-10.
If this is not the case then I apologise.
I shall try and find the post, if it has not been deleted.
Curly, Sound have decreased the CoS for this well from 30% to 25%, however I believe that microseeps of natural gas have been recorded at the TE-10 site, which from my perspective and limited understanding is good news, there were not any seeps seen at the TE-9 site.
From what reading I have done, microseeps give a good indication that there is a reservoir below, however the gas seeping may not be travelling vertically, there are apparently some factors that can affect the direction of travel.
I found the thesis by Sanaz Salati on detecting hydrocarbon seepage quite interesting (do a google search for the PDF), as well as Chris parry's presentation on oil seeps, which can be seen at this link:
http://anyflip.com/mkas/jtjo/basic
I think Jarrovian mentioned risk and having a dynamic risk assessment, as well as defining risk, hazard and controls.
My opinion is that, relevant and pertinent data of a high quality and its accurate interpretation are critical to greatly reducing risk and therefore increasing the probability of success. The data we have so far is not of sufficient quality to be of benefit, if it were I am sure we would not have drilled at TE-9 location.
Mike, many people would have a different investment strategy if they were told that for each TCF of recoverable gas they would get approximately 75pps and not 150pps.
This is guidance direct from the company, and this investment is turning out currently not to be high risk high reward but high risk and at best mediocre reward.
And as this is a BB for Sound Energy then surely discussing these matters, as well as others, is a perfectly valid and appropriate action.
If TE-9 had come in and the share price was at 40 to 50p do you not think that people would still be asking questions?
Relieved of course that it had come in but no doubt perplexed as to why it was not worth more.
0.6 TCF receverable worth about 30p and about 15p (apparently) for the TE-5 horst.
DM and Shaun, no problem with the company drilling but to continue to do so when relying on the seismic when its interpretation is so far out of kilter with reality seems foolish.
Shaun if you consider it to be hysteria that people have potentially been mislead on the guidance per TCF that each share is actually worth when they have only be questoning things to try and determine facts then I think you have misread the BB over the past week.
I think the distrust is very valid, the figures that Sound have implied and is worth to individual shareholders for each recoverable TCF proven up have been misleading at best.
A lot of people based their investment strategy on these values and now for them to be reduced not by a couple of perecent, but potentially reduced to over 50%, is perhaps the reason for the negativity and paranoioa that exists.
I feel sorry for BM, he has been put under great deal of pressure to produce results with incomplete/poor data on the back of what JP has promised to share holders.
I have already stated the data, its quality, its quantity and its analysis are critical to getting this right.
The more relevant/useful and scientifically backed up data that is obtained can only help to reduce the level of risk.
The most recent RNS states that approximately £15,000 worth of shares were paid for the services provided by a 3rd party, could it be, as already speculated, that this 3rd party is Scotforth?
Someone asked, will they compensate us if we drill using their data and it fails, I shall ask them the question, how much more are we paying the BoD and do they ever compensate us when they fail on a drill.
Jack I understand how the assets are currently set up, I also know what the intention of JP was at the start. I am just thinking that if things are not going to plan then is there anything that would stop JP from splitting Tendrara up and selling a part of that i.e. the TE-5 horst, thus raising funds and allowing us to try to develop another part of Tendrara?
With so much ambiguity coming out of the Sound BoD what we assume and what they mean maybe two entirely different things.