Member Info for Kasjnaton

This is how I understood it to be, that it was based on recoverable hydrocarbons, it is just that your post left a little ambiguity.

Just wanted to check, thanks.

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?

Do you mean that the recoverable amount (0.32 TCF) or the total quantity (0.65 TCF) has to be discounted by 47.5%.

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.

I took it to mean 3TCF recoverable, 3 x 150p = 450pps

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.

It was stated by Sound that they could sell the asset, I would like them to define what they term as the 'Asset' would it be the whole of the Tendrara licence or just a proportion of it which contains the TE-5 horst?

If they are using some method for measuring gas seepage at the surface and they are geting positive results back from the TE-10 area then to me that is very good news.
Marleen F Nooman has had papers published on the subject of gas seepage and its affects on plants and the evidence is clear that gas seepage effects their growth, I believe that this is the basis for the methodology of Scotforth, they obviously would not wish to give away their IP as already stated.
A simple google search of Marleen F Nooman will bring up the relevant papers, one on Detecting the Influence of Gas Seepage on Vegetation,using Hyperspectral Remote Sensing and one paper on Detecting the Influence of Gas Seepage on Vegetation, using Hyperspectral Remote Sensing.

So IF this method can be used to determine the best points of discovery for drilling wells how are we going to do it for the size of the licence we have?

My post at 20:31 was in response to someone questioning who a 3rd party was.
I assumed it was aimed at me so I replied.
My post at 21:02 does not mention any company, only my perspective, and that is that data and its interpretation is critically important, and that I would want as much scientifically backed up data as possible to help reduce risk.
If you disagree and are happy with the current situation then fine, we would just have different perspectives on this.

Oh, and just to add, if I have all the available data and the drills have not gone right, I will be in a better negotiating position giving me the opportunity to explain to any bidder what went wrong, why it went wrong and where it went wrong and how they can improve upon it, and if the don't bid what I feel is a fair price, then the share holders should get a vote to either accept the bid or be diluted down by the issue of new equity.
Data/information and its analysis is critical in this game, get it right and the share price could be many many multiples of where it is now, might even get to £1 ;0)
Why do I say this? Because the TE-5 horst is not the only location in the whole of Tendrara to hold commercial hydrocarbons, SBK-1 is another location, although smaller, and every well that encountered the TAGI has found hydrocarbons.
Still holding out hope that this comes good, looking at a far lower sale price than Mooncheeses £62, I would just like extra data, if available to be utilised to help Brian and the team out.

As someone else has already stated with the updated per TCF valuations the £10 per share was never actually acheivable.
Even if we are at the high end of the total GOIP and we maatch the Algerian geology with a 4:1 ratio between TAGI and Paleozoic that would give us approximately 100 TCF GOIP.
So even if we were to prove up by the drill bit, as per Brians desires, 6 TCF under his belt, then that would leave 94 TCF GOIP which would be worth a percentage of what has been proved up by the drill bit, which we were told would be about 10%.
So; 6 TCF GOIP = 3 TCF recoverable
3 TCF recoverable at 71p Per TCF £2.10
47 TCF at 7p is £3.29
Total price per share is therefore £5.39.
Even if you wish to increase the 10% to 20% you're still at less than £9.
Of course in this scenario there is far less risk, so reductions to account for this would be less, however £5.00 per share if we hit everything perfectly appears to be the top end.
Constructive criticism on the above please if I have misunderstood or miscalculated something.