Member Info for kdix

I agree with Bolgas that there is no clarity on the implications of the actual GAS THAT WAS FOUND. The RNS stated "...the upper reservoir section between 2,710m and 2,724m is interpreted to be GAS BEARING at sub-commercial volumes"....so we DID FIND GAS! As we know, Hawkeye-1 was a vertical drill going through the OUTER EDGE of the gas cap (see 3D seismic picture http://i58.tinypic.com/11rf8r9.png). The seismic shows that the drill was just 250m away (approx.) from the SW edge of the red 'gas contact' line. As stated in the RNS, this was in fact only 14m THICK at this point. If they had drilled into the central (sweet spot) of the gas cap (see cross section diagram http://i58.tinypic.com/11rf8r9.png), over 1km to the NE of the drill point, where the gas cap is MANY TIMES THICKER, would they still have announced "sub-commercial volumes"? This raises a big question in my mind:- What is the definition of the phrase "sub-commercial VOLUMES" in the RNS? Is it sub-commercial because at that CHOSEN DRILL POINT the gas interval was only 14m thick? (therefore small volume). The keyword here is "VOLUMES". They have not said the FOUND GAS is of poor quality. Yes, they were hoping to find oil AND gas but this drill was always about finding how far any gas from Malampaya had migrated south westwards. I just wonder if Hawkeye-1 in fact DID ACTUALLY PROVE THE GAS MIGRATION and that not finding commercial oil was simply a by-product/casualty of this exploratory endeavor? Perhaps they are secretly quite pleased with the result and never really needed the reassurance of finding a thicker gas pay by drilling through the sweet spot. As I say, perhaps they've already fulfilled their main (non-public) aim of proving gas migration from Malampaya and are now conducting a thorough analysis of the well logs. It just seems slightly strange that they've effectively written off oil (not that they cared anyway) but have remained ambiguous about the gas. Then again, perhaps I'm just clutching at straws. ;)

http://i58.tinypic.com/11rf8r9.png

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080407/pdf/318fp2f340flnx.pdf

http://i57.tinypic.com/9fuxrc.png

[IMG]http://i57.tinypic.com/9fuxrc.png

I must admit mikecoster1 that you describe a sensible way forward for TomCo. We, as shareholders, would get the best of both worlds - a boost to share price when the lease was sold then a longer term upside to look forward to. If the lease was bought (by Total/Red Leaf?) for say $5 to $8pb then that's approx £400 - £600million in the coffers (and SP of 20p to 30p equivalent?). They invest in a new project that they can develop to full completion and reap the full, longer term, rewards (didn't Chris Brown once say that he aimed to take TomCo to a £1 a share?).

Is that idle speculation spenfold?

Hi rorker, I posted some fag packet calculations last month. Here is a copy of that post fwiw:- Mention of PE ratio valuations got me thinking I'd have a go with TOM's valuation. I'm no expert so feel free to pull my figures apart. I've based it on 9800 bopd that the first capsule is supposed to produce. Assumed profit of $40/bbl (with oil prices over $100 and a TomCo stated breakeven oil price of $50/bbl then this is maybe quite conservative). So, (9800 x 360 days) x $40/1.60 = £88,200,000 per year / 1,896,000,000 shares = 4.6p earnings per share The typical PE ratio of the oil sector is 12, so SP = 12 x 4.6p = 55.2p per share. Of course, this is based on TOM getting to full production on one capsule and as we 'know' this is very unlikely as they will probably be bought out by then. ----------------- While I'm in calculation mode, Total invested an equivalent $5.38 /boe for Red Leaf's assets (119 million barrel's of slightly less quality oil than TomCo's lease). If we guess that JORC reserves will be around 70% of 126million bbls = 88 million barrels then at $5.38/boe, that's about 16p per share (88,000,000 x $5.38/1.6 divided by 1,896,000,000 shares). If we get bought out at something more like $10/bbl (in ground), that would be an SP of 29p. Anyways, all food for thought :) PS. Found this very good article from July about TOM's valuation: http://www.thefiringroom.com/oil-gas/tomco-energy-plc-big-gains-for-patient-investors/

Mention of PE ratio valuations got me thinking I'd have a go with TOM's valuation. I'm no expert so feel free to pull my figures apart. I've based it on 9800 bopd that the first capsule is supposed to produce. Assumed profit of $40/bbl (with oil prices over $100 and a TomCo stated breakeven oil price of $50/bbl then this is maybe quite conservative). So, (9800 x 360 days) x $40/1.60 = £88,200,000 per year / 1,896,000,000 shares = 4.6p earnings per share The typical PE ratio of the oil sector is 12, so SP = 12 x 4.6p = 55.2p per share. Of course, this is based on TOM getting to full production on one capsule and as we 'know' this is very unlikely as they will probably be bought out by then. ----------------- While I'm in calculation mode, Total invested an equivalent $5.38 /boe for Red Leaf's assets (119 million barrel's of slightly less quality oil than TomCo's lease). If we guess that JORC reserves will be around 70% of 126million bbls = 88 million barrels then at $5.38/boe, that's about 16p per share (88,000,000 x $5.38/1.6 divided by 1,896,000,000 shares). If we get bought out at something more like $10/bbl (in ground), that would be an SP of 29p. Anyways, all food for thought :) PS. Found this very good article from July about TOM's valuation: http://www.thefiringroom.com/oil-gas/tomco-energy-plc-big-gains-for-patient-investors/

Hey Golfkid, love these price predictions. Can I double check how you worked them out. e.g. ($5pb/1.6) x 100,000,000 barrels / 2billion shares (say) = 16p approx. Or am I missing something?

Ah cool. So, does that indicate an RNS is imminent? (today? next few days?). Cheers.

Excuse my ignorance but what is a '1 code' ? Ta.

The June 11 2013 Red Leaf presentation states the following:- Page 4 - "Red Leaf’s first oil from Early Production System (EPS) using EcoShale™ planned for 2014" Page 7 - "First production from EPS planned for 2014" So, has the date changed (to 2015) since this 11th June presentation?

This is a question for stubbsy1. I'm new to this board but am a large holder of TOM. Just wondered stubbsy1, where do these 7% and 93% figures come from regarding JORC? Are these figures published somewhere or is this from your own research? Cheers