Member Info for Kasjnaton

No I am not connected with Scotforth, I shall contact Sound, I have not had any reason to do so before.
I do not consider them a failsafe method just an extra source of data that could potentially be used.
Cannae216, thank you for the message and again another message with ambiguity from Sound.

Smallsmile thank you for the repsonse.
So Sound have already looked at this data and considered it to be less than valuable.
That was not really the impression that GRH had given.
I appreciate that nothing is full proof but it would be nice if they could hold off TE-10 for the results to come back from this French firm.
If you could let me know the name of the firm it would be much apprecaited, thank you.

In all fairness I am not promoting them, I am just asking why should the data not be used?
Now if you are saying you have looked at their data, their past successes and it still does not add up then fair enough.
And if you are also saying that it is too good to be true then I can accept that as well, but if they have everything fully audited as proof of their successes then is that not worth anything?

Why would they compensate a percentage on failure?
But if they were would you expect them to compensate a percentage of the drill costs or the loss in share value?
Nothing in life is 100% guaranteed, well except brith, death and taxes.

I wondered where several of my posts had gone.
I suppose they are being deleted because who ever deletes them has no counter argument or they don't want to discuss the subject any further. This is a shame as perhaps a constructive discussion could detail why some people are dead set against the use of this data.
The crux of my post was that the BoD have now stated that the seismic is not reducing the risk.
That it cannot be used to pin point drills.
However the thing is that there is gas in the Tendrara licence that can be commercialised, it is just finding it, and if we do on either of the next drills then it is down to one thing and one thing only, luck.
I would prefer not to rely on luck when investing, I would prefer to have the full available dataset to me so that I know what I am dealing with.
So now the moment which some people are going to moan about, why not take on extra data as offered by Scotforth?
If someone can give me one logical reason why not to, then please tell me as I am unable to see any reason not to make use of their data.
Piossible logical arguemnts are:
They are expensive? They have said that they would want a modest upfront fee and a precentage if successful, a results driven company.
It would take too long. They have said that the work can be turned around quickly.
It is unproven. Sure Scotforth are not claiming 100% accuracy with their work but their percentage success rate is way over the 25% and 30% that Sound is able to acheive with the data currently used.
If Sound are not prepared to make use of all available data and are relying on luck then it is effectively wildcat drilling.
And lastly, if they get hold of the data and make use of it for a 'modest upfornt fee' and it does not cmoe in, at least they can turn around and say we told you so, this data was no good.
And if it does help to pin point the sweet spot, and we are succesful because of this data, then who loses out?

Only1Gibbo, I sincerly hope that you are right and that Fellrunner has got it wrong.
The only things I will say is that if you are right then the TE-5 horst alone would be worth approx 50p per share to Sound.
So why would JP set up a trading plan to sell shares at below this value?
Why does JP not simply state what you have said as fact?
Why is there so much ambiguity and confusion over this which is one of the most important things, it would be so easy for the BoD to put this straight?

But if they are only drilling dusters and the seismic is difficult to interpret, how much is the seismic actually worth?
I would say not a great deal.
Also, if seismic is not for the pinpointing of wells why are we not using other methods to decide were to drill?

I take it that you are referring to the Scotforth technology/methodology?
Well for a starter several businesses have tried it and gained from its use.
Secondly they are results driven, i.e. small upfront cost and a percentage of anything IF successful.
If it does not work is it really going to massively inconvenience the company or shareholders?
If it does work is it going to be of benefit to the company and shareholders?
And please at least try and come up with a logical argument why Sound Energy should not employ this technology.
For I cannot see an argument against its use.
Brian needs all the help he can get, the seismic is not up to scratch according to him, he is doing the best with what he has got.
I think JP has effectively ramped this to high heaven, putting Brian under enormous pressure to deliver and when he can't he gets shouted at by the PI's here. It is truly sad to see.
As I said I don't see what the problem is with at least Sound discussing this with Scotforth.
They can do the work quickly, they have low upfront costs.
It certainly cannot be any worse than the data we are currently dealing with.

We know from what Brian has said that the Seismic is not adding any value to the exploration process.
We are in effect wild catting the licence area.
You serisouly think that 25% success rate is accurate?
They could give a 49% chance of success and still say that the likliehood would be that it would fail.
As I have posted previously, and as stated by Brian, extra data is needed in order to identify the best areas to drill.
The only source of extra data that I am aware of is Scotforth.

I was under the impression that the seismic would only add value to analogus features if the drill was succesful. so for instance if TE-9 came in there are other structures similar to that proved up by the seismic, these structures are now worthless though, and the siesmic adds no value as TE-9 was a duster.
Of course there is some intrinsic value to the seismic but this only going to be pence on the share price, if that.

Absolutely nothing without the GSA.
Well everyone thought that it was £1.50 per TCf but apparently it is not, it is 47.5% of £1.50 per TCF, which is now 70p per TCF.
As we have approx. 1/3 recoverable of 1 TCF then the TE-5 horst is worth about 24p per share.
Now I think the real apparent reason for the delay in the GSA, it kept a lot of people in the dark, release the GSA earlier and they cannot exit aseveryone would realise what is going on and sell out.
The behaviour of JP has been appalling to say the least.
Yes he has our backs, he has them up against the well.
Even if we get the GSA in at $9 dollars and add 20% to the price per TCF thenwe have the following:
£1.80 per TCF, 47.5% of this is 85p per TCF, again 1/3 of a TCF in the TE-5 horst gicves a value of approximately 29p.
However you cut it it is not good.

I think that you will find that it is ducks not a duck and that they are all marching and shitting in a row.

TE-6 and TE-7 are both on the TE-5 horst.

Graham

I am surprised that you are still here after being treated extremely poorly by some of the posters, you don't hide anonymously behind an alias like some of the other people here and you conduct yourself in a professional manner.

How some people can simply come out and ask about the analysis that you have carried out on TE-10, this is after all your IP.

Having said that though what harm would come of showing, as an example the audit trail for the Badile drill that was carried out?
Showing the work on your website?

I do though have a couple of questions which I hope that you would be able to answer and that is how many drills, in your estimation, do you think would be required to get an appreciation of the total amount of hydrocarbons that are commercially available within Tendrara?

And if a company were to purchase data from you of a licence area that they owned how do you generally price the data package up?
For instance is it a percentage of the value added by any finds or is it a flat rate per area?

Quite a number of PI's were asking to revisit the areas that had been drilled previously and had gas shows.
If TE-10 does not come in I don't think that we now have any other choice other than to do this anyway.
Redrilling of the old locations could have been done whilst siesmic was being shot, firmed up the share price well north of here, the GSA would probably already be signed, as other commerical gas shows had been identified and this would have allowed for either an LE, albeit at a lower amount than either the £5 or four digits or whatever ramping value JP was going on about, or would have allowed a fund raise at a higher share price to carry out further work.
With the result of TE-9 showing the flaws in the understanding of the siesmic I hold very little hope of TE-10 coming in.
If TE-9 had agreed with the siesmic, and they encountered the TAGI and gas but it was too tight to produce from then I would hold out more hope.
Not sure what they will do with TE-11, I don't think that they have a clue either.

I am not GRH and I am not associated in anyway with Scotforth.
OK sorry yes, Seismic interpretation broken not basin model.

TE-10 now
not TE-10 no
(sorry typo)

Agree with you entirely.
TE-9 has broken the basin model, drilling TE-10 no is taking a wild stab in the dark.
If the geology was as expected by the basin model and gas found but not commercial then I would not have as problem with drilling TE-10 but this is not the case.
They need to take a step back and reassess the basin model, and , maybe, look at what Scotforth have to offer.
GRH, they cannot do any worse than us.
Instead of JP using penalty shoot out as his anaology he should of used going down to the casino and having three chances there with PI's money.
I just hope that with the seismic, what we have already found and Sidi that we will get back up to 50p ish, or should that £0.50? ;-).
But as already mentioned is there going to actually be a GSA for TE-5 if no other gas is found?
Inm which case these shares will be worse even less if we don't get lucky on one or both of the next two drills.