Member Info for KeithOz

Dai - Ian Stalker was talking in August 2021, specifically about the second drill on Tai, and before that drill was prematurely aborted, so I don't think his comments are of relevance to the 2022 drilling programme.

In DM's latest Proactive interview
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/971344/helium-one-announce-multiple-surface-helium-anomalies-identified-at-rukwa-eyasi-and-balangida-971344.html
at 1.28 he mentions a promising structure 'adjacent to Tai' and at 4.00+ he says that there will be an RNS that details exactly where they will be drilling by the end of Q1, which is less than 10 weeks away.

At the time Lorna was talking, she couldn't have seen any of the second set of seismic results, and maybe if they subsequently identified a better drill location on the Tai structure (which is quite large), they would start there. If all the anecdotal evidence is believed - and the various sources correlate well - the team clearly believes they found large quantities of He at Tai-1, so it would be eminently sensible to adopt a low-risk approach with your first drill of the new campaign by repeating Tai-1, or close by as indicated by the higher-resolution seismic, but this time with equipment up for the job.

That's called the closing auction - it happens every trading day.

Dai - In a Proactive interview late last year Lorna Blaisse was quite clear that they are going to re-drill Tai, at 04.22:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y2XbftBG-0&ab_channel=Proactive

Watched this over breakfast, thought Ben is one of the most capable presenters in the whole mining area. Most interesting points for me:
12.30 - 13.00 Talks about co-incident gravity and magnetic anomalies "those can be quite important mineralised zones" Have a look at the presentation I linked to yesterday in my post "IOCG speculation" and you can see what he is talking about, but under market rules is unable to name!
13.20 - 13.45 As I speculated yesterday, they are hoping to get a 3D view with the AMT survey, that will be incredibly useful.

If the petrography and mineralogy, plus 3 separate geophysical surveys all suggest the same thing, I would think that would be sufficient to pique the interest of a major - make no mistake, we need someone with very deep pockets to start drilling a whole bunch of 2km+ holes.

RFJ. I said I wasn't going to present any in-ground valuations, because they don't reflect commercial reality (cost of infrastructure, digging up , processing, transporting, etc), and particularly not before assay results. That was for the B1 conductor. Since you have had a go at the GRS first, I feel that I am now free to comment :-)

Ben suggested a target 5km x 5km. It starts 1km below surface and will go a long way down, but for practical purposes it is unlikely to be economic extracting anything other than the top 1km of the system. So we have 25 km3, at a density of 3 for magnetitic ultramafics. That gives 75 Bn T.

Using your conservative guess of roughly $150 per T, that gives an in-ground value of $11.25 Tn

I have absolutely no idea what that would represent for the share price, since this would be unprecedented in all stockmarket history. As usual, don't take my Napoleonic ramblings as buy advice.

O/C ADV was completely binary - all the risk on one drill. KAV has its risk spread over a range of different projects.

Hi Sunflower (wow - recuerdo mi español) here it is, all 54 pages:

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2022/01/cpr2022.pdf

This combination had crossed my mind also - after all we have Lonny, who does know a bit about SDX. Whether such an arrangement would be acceptable to ONHYM & Mr Mohamed I don't know.

I would put the counter argument that geopolitics is in our favour. Were Russia to continue their invasion of Ukraine, started in February 2014, heavy sanctions would be applied. A big slice of the world's Ni & Pd comes from Norilsk, so an alternative source of supply from a politically stable / neutral country such as Botswana would be valued at a premium. Of course we have to find it first :-)

TK - btw - Noril'sk underlain by Olympic Dam for £20M? Sounds good value to me - or maybe you deserve a special category prize in mining ramper of the year contest :-)

TK - Well spotted, you are quite correct, but the important figure for interpretation purposes is the magnitude of the range between the high and low measurements. The KAV chart on Twitter today shows an apparent gravitational background of -109.7, with a gravitational high of -82.1, giving an anomaly of 27.6 milliGals.
The l-hand chart in slide 3 of the presentation I linked gives a range for Olympic Dam of +9.34 to -1.97 against an unstated background, giving an anomaly of 11.31 milliGals.
Whatever your starting point or method of presenting the data, this looks pretty significant to me at this stage.

Questions are once again being asked as to whether the GRS anomalies are due to an IOCG. I was a little taken aback to see a 30milliGal anomaly - this is a huge gravimetric variation. I've found a powerpoint presentation which compares gravimetric (l-hand side)and magnetic (r-hand side) readings taken over a number of IOCG deposits around the Gawler Craton in South Australia, one of which is the famous Olympic Dam. You can clearly see the correlation between the different surveys. Very interesting is that on the gravimetric surveys, the variation was at maximum about 10 milliGals.

https://energymining.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/348515/WhichAnomalyShouldIDrill_KatonaRD.pdf

A caveat - as I have mentioned before, Olympic Dam is related to a granitic intrusion, and has haematite as the Fe component. The GRS is likely to be ultramafic related, and as we have seen, if this is an IOCG deposit, the Fe appears to be in the form of magnetite. The form of the iron mineralisation is related to temperature, so you should not expect the same minerals in the GRS and OD. Indeed, the S. Australian IOCGs are very unusual in containing Uranium - I am not aware of this occurring with IOCG systems in other parts of the world.

This is why I said earlier today that the results of the mineralogy & petrography will be of crucial importance, I don't think I can usefully speculate further at this stage, and you should certainly not take my speculations as a buy signal.

Anmaloy?? You knew it was anomaly. Maybe I am still asleep.

Yes, I'm awake. Sorry I didn't get anything out for 17 minutes, but I'm clearing up fallen trees, etc., in the tail end of a cyclone (hurricane to you in the N. hemisphere), and my wife, who is a nurse, now has Covid, so I am a little busier than normal. I will try to do better next time.
PS, it's i before e, except after c, unless your name is Keith

Today's RNS confirms what has already been speculated upon - that there is something (as yet unknown) causing the anmaloy known as the GRS. The new gravity is much higher resolution than older data, and when overlain on the magnetic data, corresponds very well. What we have now is a good 2D picture. On feature of AMT, which has been used for decades, is that the lower the frequency used, the greater the depth penetration, so I assume they will use multiple frequencies to build up a 3D picture.

Here's some good info on AMT:

http://zonge.com/geophysical-methods/electrical-em/amt-and-mt/

I am very interested in seeing the results of the mineralogy & petrology - this will give the best indication of what sort of system is down there - whatever it is, it is VERY big!

TotalTrader - I apologise that no one has answered your questions, it's just that every time the share price increases, a hoard of professional derampers pops up and make lots of ambiguous statements attempting to show the company and its management in a poor light - this has happened today. Once lse has restored the facility to look at chat history, you can look back on a poster's history and make up your own mind if they are contributing anything useful or merely spreading FUD.

Now. You have read through the new CPR - great, that's more than many here. You will see that the resource has been moved from Prospective to Contingent, as a result of the actual MOU-1 drill tests (confirmed by world-class outfit NuTech) and reinterpretation of the seismic work. So what we currently have is a good idea of the area of the reservoir, its thickness, porosity, permeability, pressure, gas content and charge.

In order to move from Contingent Resources to Reserves, an extended flow test (normally at least 30 days) needs to be performed. This will confirm that the parameters already measured are correct, and that the rate of gas flow over the test period is sufficiently uniform and stable to confirm the continuity of the reservoir. The MOU-1 flow test was originally planned to have started by now, but Covid restrictions have delayed assembling the necessary equipment and personnel. Everything is already paid for or budgeted for, despite claims on here that suggest the opposite, and testing is now expected to start at the beginning of April. We will likely know results in May.

The idea is to use the MOU-1 flow rates as evidence of commercial gas in order to finalise offtake agreements. It is intended that these agreements will be adequate to fund drilling MOU-4, which because it is into the same formation as MOU-1 (the Moulouya Fan), will be classed as an Appraisal well, which is the hoped will also be used for production.

So the process here should be a lot faster and cheaper than a typical mineral resource definition. Although I am a geologist, I do not claim specific O & G expertise. There are a few posters here that are better qualified and experienced in O & G than I am, hopefully they will chime in. Hope this helps answer your questions, all the best with your decisions re investing in KAV. - Keith

Geowiz - have you read the CPR? Do you know who NuTech are? Why are you using an inappropriate Username?

James - good question, not a simple answer! I'm sure that you appreciate that two different geophysical methods are being used. TDEM is a relatively new technique, and although Spectral are quite possibly the leading outfit using this, it needs fine-tuning for different geological settings. Since it is done from the surface, results are going to be obscured by the rock between surface and the hoped-for target. In our case we have 500m of different rock types including sandstones, shales, coal beds, volcanics and ultramafic intrusions. This needs some careful interpretation, and ideally calibration against alternative geophysical methods and of course examination of the actual rock from the drill core. You may recall that the initial TDEM results were also sent to 3 different independent experts for their input. This cross-calibration and evaluation is exactly what KAV are doing in this series of drills, with the intention of coming up with an accurate template for applying to identify new targets.
DHEM is a well-established technique, and is recognised as being very accurate - not only are you a lot closer to the target, without the intervening thickness of obscuring rock, but you can also run the scans at different depth, giving you a 3D view. I would not assume that you will get a higher reading the closer to a conductor - but it is reasonable to assume that it will be a more accurate conductance reading. Of course the big problem is that you need a borehole to begin with - which don't come cheap, especially if you are off-target.

One of the reasons I am so keen on KAV is that they are conducting cutting-edge evaluation technologies in a coordinated programme, with the aim of determining the most accurate and cost-effective way of identifying economic targets. They have recruited top people, and have a huge area of potentially the most prospective ground on the planet. By the end of this drill, we will know if this approach is successful or not and can be applied across the rest of the KS. If so, fasten your seat belt.

JD - nothing wrong with your maths, it's just that I think it is difficult to make a forecast based on an average depth per day. While the average for the 3.5 drills to date has been just under 20m/day, the rate has been vastly different over different sections. None of us on here, nor the KAV drilling team, have come up with correct time to TD estimates for any of the holes. I have this entry with a circle round it in my diary - "B1 TD?", but it is for December 17th 2021!

fwiw, my read of the situation is:

1. When the new owner (huge CO2 producer from ceramic tile firing, methane producer from zillions of cows) bought the property, they would have to take on the existing legal access agreements, which have presumably made separately with Santos for the 2 shared wells, and with Tamboran for Maverick.
2. Santos did not complete all the paperwork for modifications to the plans for the 2 shared wells.
3. New owner sees this as an opportunity to screw some money out of Santos, takes them to court.
4. Santos pays the initial sweetener, is in negotiations to continue work on the 2 new wells. This may or may not delay work, depending upon the (financial) outcome of the negotiations. We will hear soon.
5. The Tamboran Maverick well IS on the property, but the original agreement should still be valid, unless Tamboran have also made changes to the work programme without the required paperwork, which is unlikely because we would have heard by now.
6. I see no reason why Maverick should not go ahead as planned.