Member Info for Kasjnaton

Here is another nice PDF, page 51 contains the pertinent details, or page 50 for anyone who prefers German...

https://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/Portaldata/1/Resources/documents/2013/Erdbeobachtung_280313_web_72dpi.pdf

Fund raise, either through a loan or equity to carry out more drilling, a combination of production wells at TE-5 and exploratory wells at other locations on the licence area.

Agreed that the initial wells drilled will be for production but what do you suggest we do with the rest of the licence? Nothing?

And what do yuo thnk that the value of shares will be if all the BoD have is the production from the TE-5 horst?

Surely in order to give share holders a return on their investment some exploration wells will have to be drilled.

Below is a link to a ptaent titled Remote detection of deposits of hydrocarbons;

https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2544309C2/en

Hi Petroleonline,

Not sure if I understand your post but TE-6 and TE-7 were the two appraisal wells drilled by Sound on the TE-5 Horst to prove its commerciality.

The area that the TE-5 horst covers was RNS'd on 20th December 2017, quoting form the RNS:

"The Certification was undertaken on an area of 250km2".

The thickness of the gas bearing layers I am sure has been referenced somewhere but I cannot find the information at the moement.

Should have also added, do you think that it is either ethically or morally right that drilling should go ahead based only on faulty/incomplete/uncalibrated/fast tracked seismic data?

I do not know how much Scotforth would charge Sound to make use of their technology.

Without knowing this I cannot say whether or not it is morally right for Sound to make use of them.

It has been stated though that they would want a modest upfront fee and a percentage of profits, I can only express my opinion on whether or not I think that this is acceptable when details of what payments Scotforth would want are, after all what is modest to one person maybe excessive to another.

A guide to how much they may charge can be seen in the PDF I linked to on Friday at 18:35 gives a cost of $7 per Km^2 for analysis of the licence area. Also interesting to see who owns 6% of the shares in that company.
I do know though however that one of the duties of the BoD is to reduce risk as far as practical - I do not believe that they have done this before drilling TE-8, 9 or 10.

In another document, which was filed before the Utah board of oil gas and mining (although it is 182 pages most of it is tables of data and results and is quite interesting reading in its own right)..

Quoting from page 11;
The Scotforth proprietary Mapping explains why the initial Laterals (1&2) found high end condensate... but missed the deeper oil column found in lateral #3.

The ST #3 Lateral drill intersected EXACTLY where the Scotforth RSDD-H readings indicated.

These RSDD-H readings at the Nephi location have a "similar expression to that observed over the Central Utah Covenant Field discovery.". A (50+) million bbl field analog.

I feel JP has painted himself and Sound into a corner, any offers that come in will be low ball that we will be forced to accept and in the meantime, as has been mentioned by other posters, the share price will continue to drift down over the course of several months.

I may of course be totally wrong, we may still end up with SG47's £2.50 per share but I doubt it. But if we do then I shall apologise to JP and everyone on this board.

At the end of the day what do I want? The best possible outcome for everyone, and at the moment the only way I can see that happening is by drilling again, that can only happen with additional funds being raised and should only be carried out whilst making use of additional data.

Bula, wish I could offer some hope to you but at the moment I cannot. The shame is that TE-5 is not the only source of commercial hydrocarbons in the licence area.

Although non-commercial TE-10 is proof of that tyhere is a working hydrocarbon system in the licence area.

With 47.5% of it owned by Sound it is truly the opportunity of a lifetime but only if the company goes about it in the right way.

I also cannot see anything above 30 pps along with contingency payments and any offer will be far below this. If we could get more than this why would JP sell out at about 40pps?

The ONLY reason I keep going on about other methodolgies and techniques for hydrocarbon discovery is because I think that it is morally the right thing to do with so many people so far underwater caused by the ramping of JP. Especially when these techniques do exist and are scientically verified in helping to reduce drilling risk.

It feels like the BoD know that the seismic is not good enough so they are just cutting and running with whatver they can get away with.

Even if we get £1 per share plus contingency payments I would still not see the investment here as a success.

The RNS dated 6th September 2018 details the production concession awarded to sound.

This link shows their current consumption:
https://knoema.com/atlas/Morocco/topics/Energy/Gas/Dry-natural-gas-consumption

So if Morocco continues to consume 44 BCF per year, then the 377 BCF that can be extracted and sold on from the TE-5 horst would last approx. 8.5 years.

I am sure that company guidance has been that Sidi was worth about 5 pence per share, I may though of course have misheard or misread it

OK so there was never a plan 'B'? which could be either or both of bringing TE-5 horst to production and drilling at SM.

JP better get a decent deal for Tendrara then as we have not done anything with SM and it is only vaslued at around 5pps.

With regards to Miorocco wanting production by 2021 why would the terms of the future exploration be so relaxed?

OK, so the link I posted yesterday did not garner any interest, how about the one below which is a PDF'd report to the Utah board of oil, gas an mining from Entrada Energy. The whole document is an interesting read and very infomrative in parts but have a look at page 11...

https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/bbooks/2017/08_Aug/Docket/2017-020_274-02_Hewitt/2017-020_20170912.1_RespondentsExhibits.pdf

The link below is a PDF from Africa New Energies that used RSDD-H as well as other technologies.

Section 5.2 details the remote sensing program.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwidvrjZncbiAhUJVBUIHXyYBAQQFjACegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ane.na%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Ftechnical-advisory-committee.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2p309aE-0Hd4eR0qJuuuL7

Crude stated an unfounded opinion, I made a counter argument and asked for Crude to reply to it, he has chosen to not even acknoweldge my post so I do not see how I have been nasty to him, if he had said I will look at some of the links you have posted and get back to you next weekend then I know that he is being serious and my respect for him would have dramatically increased.

So without funding what do you suggest we do with our licence area(s) if there are no buyers that offer an acceptable sum of money to by the licence?

My opinion is that there is 20TCF + of gas in our licence area, at a conservative recovery rate of 50% 10 TCF extractable, each receoverable TCF is 75pps, it does not take a genius to work out the potential here..

You tell me why we should not raise funds and drill a few more wells and if you tell me because JP is a deal maker then I say let us just wait and see what is on offer.

(I should have said upto 6 more wells, 3 or 4 maybe sufficient.)

So no one has commented on any of the links I posted last time. One of the negatives from this BB which surrounds Hyper spectral remote sensing was that none of the majors use it, well the following appears to counter that opinion:
A cooperative R&D study was initiated by HJW Geospatial Inc. (HJW) and The Geosat Committee Inc. (Geosat) in early 2000.

This study was designed to measure with ground and airborne hyperspectral technology different materials associated with onshore oil seeps and oil-impacted soils in southern California.2 The primary objectives of the study were to develop an understanding of the spectral characteristics of oil-impacted soils and seeps3 and to build a spectral library that would make the detection process more rapid and reliable signatures.

Chevron, Royal Dutch/Shell, and ExxonMobil sponsored the study and provided key feedback and guidance to the research effort. The airborne hyperspectral imagery was acquired by Earth Search Sciences Inc. (ESSI) during a 1998 group shoot over the Santa Barbara, Calif., area (Fig. 1).

The above is from the following link;
https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-99/issue-37/special-report/exploring-for-onshore-oil-seeps-with-hyperspectral-imaging.html

And although referring to oil will also be relevant to the Hydrocarbon gas industry as well, furthermore this is a report from 2001 and this methodology and technology will have made great advances over the last 18+ years.

Testpack, looks like Crude has chosen to ignore your post and your questions, just as he has ignored mine.

I don't think we need quite so many drills as you think, I suspect that half a dozen drills in the right location will be more than enough to see the share price over £5 per share and this is the biggest shame of all, truly massive potential within our licence area being sold off on the cheap, you may even say criminal.

I do not know what is going on behind closed doors but I now suspect that JP has been trying to sell the asset for sometime without much luck. I say this as if you have majors falling over themselves to buy the licence area why the need to go out and 'market' the asset, no, they need to be convinced that there is something there worthwhile investing in and at this moment in time they do not think that this is the case.

I say we need to be told what plan 'B' and plan 'C' is. At one point SM was plan 'B' is it still plan 'B', or is going into production with the TE-5 Horst plan 'B'?

Whichever way you look at it a fund raise will be necessary either through share issue or raising finance, would be nice to know what is on the BoD's mind with regards to this.

Last point, for BM and the rest of the BoD but in particular JP as head of the company that unlocks the Tendrara licence area it will not only result in financial gain for all of them but an amount of prestige which he will not be otherwise able to obtain, this is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity for ALL invested in this company, and it is slipping through our fingers like the sands of the Moroccan desert.

So Crude and Jordan, you have both had plenty of time to reply to my message below, the whole bank holiday weekend actually but you have chosen to ignore my points that I put forward.
Crude, you call the technology 'Snake oil' a derogatory term used to describe someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods.
And Jordan you state that it is bull****.
As Socrates said “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” Of course you can exchange slander for insults.
However I would actually like to thank the pair of you as if you had not said anything then I would not have done any further research into the subject of Hyperspectral remote sensing and would therefore not have come across the following interesting articles.
Of course I suspect that you will either return to insults or ignore this post on the BB, or you could come up with a valid argument as to why it is of no use, but for that you will have to go against a lot of scientifically proven and peer reviewed papers.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwj6nuuyu77iAhXBRxUIHdoQBA0QFjACegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Flra.le.ac.uk%2Fbitstream%2F2381%2F40508%2F1%2F2014ArellanoMoraPHPhD.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3Vh7nC_g9XFGDscRy6vtf8

http://www.tleonline.org/theleadingedge/january_2017/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1046019#articleId1046019

https://www.amazon.com/Hyperspectral-Imaging-Remote-Sensing-Algorithms-ebook/dp/B01LZZ5ELH

http://www.geo.utep.edu/pub/hurtado/remotesensing/assignments/readings/102918_vnirtir/tle36010024.1.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/37353?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.grsg.org.uk/

https://www.grsg.org.uk/events/remote-sensing-for-oil-and-gas-exploration-development/

https://www.grsg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/GRSG_NA_Abstract_Book.pdf

https://www.grsg.org.uk/articles/review-of-the-29th-grsg-annual-conference-and-agm/

https://www.grsg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/GRSG-AGM-and-Conference-Abstract-Book-2018-081218.pdf

https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/precious-metals-investing/gold-investing/hyperspectral-imaging-a-useful-tool-to-locate-gold-oil-and-terrorists/

Page 309 case history sniffing the air in the below book is interesting along with Chapter 9 on page 331.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yWrBAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=hyperspectral+imaging+remote+sensing+for+hydrocarbon+%22discoveries%22&source=bl&ots=s3A_6XuFbu&sig=ACfU3U1eTj8bPI78W3gm-tWvcA4U1NT4lg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2g8iw1b7iAhUHUlAKHVwmDCg4ChDoATAPegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=hyperspectral%20imaging%20remote%20sensing%20for%20hydrocarbon%20%22discoveries%22&f=false

https://igarss2019.org/Papers/AcceptedPapers.asp

Whilst at the BB event I asked BM if TE-10 and TE-11 (if drilled) were both dusters what does this say about the value of Sound.
BM stated that their current understanding of the basin model of Tendrara was wrong but that the 20+TCF of gas is still present for example there would be far more gas in the Paleo than was in their initial thinking.

I am sure that if you were to email Brian he would clarify the above.

Surely, if the only offers to come in were for 5p or 10p per share then Sound would raise more funds to continue drilling.

I also suspect that JP is planning for some kind of contingency payment in any deal that is negotiated, after all he has stated we are an exploration company, we will not be drilling appraisal wells, so the only way to get fair value is for future contingency payments.

Having said the above I do not think that any offer has been made for Sound, if there has then it was dependent upon TE-10 being successful.

Could Omar have done any worse?
TE-8 - Duster
TE-9 - Duster
TE-10 - Duster
Of course I am being flippant now and would not suggest that we employ Omar but I hope you see my point.

As for making use of remote sensing in order to detect certain mineral deposits, what is so snake oil about it?

Have you have not even bothered to read the PDF at the link I sent?

Just think about it logically, if you can, the chemistry at the immediate surface, whether soil or atmosphere will be different where hydrocarbons are present and continuously escaping from a reservoir below, these molecules will displace oxygen and nitrogen from that area.

There will therefore be a difference in surface chemistry in these areas compared to where none or very little hydrocarbons escape into the atmosphere.

Additionally any flora growing in this region will also be subjected to higher concentrations of hydrocarbons in the immediate atmosphere which will affect their growth (I had linked a PDF to this research in a previous post).

So once again this technology is, whether or not you choose to believe it scientifically verified.

I think that one of the reasons why GRH left the board was that he was being asked to prove the technology by stating whether or not TE-10 would be a duster which for a variety of reasons he was not going to disclose on a BB.

If Scotforth's terms of payment is a modest upfront fee and a percentage of any profit then I do not see anything this as being excessive.