They will have issues in the winter (low ambient temperature) times and yes they did sort the issues with the POSP plant. I wil leave it with them if they can house the critical plant in a building which has heating provided by the product.
There is a lot of mechanical rotating equipment in this process so I would be more conservative with the overall pant availability . If SB from Valkor, and the TOM BOD are worth their weight of experience then I am sure they would have factored this in.
I do not know if you have been an operator yourself or a maintenance person but either way getting the plant back running depends on having the right people running and maintaining it.
A good design will always try to minimise human involvement because mosts accidents are caused by human errors.
TOM are sitting on a fortune, but man they are really dragging their heals over this. Reminds me of Thereasa May and Brexit.
Hi Dazzle, until we get an update on the land deal following the movement of the goalposts to secure funding at the cost of a 6 week production delay we will sit at this price. The cold weather in Utah is approaching and I can only see another RNS stating a drilling delay due to cold weather. Sorry to sound so dreary but nobody needs to go and get their parms read to see where this is heading. As I have stated on previous posts they could have raised the funds to buy the 10% via a placing instead. Now we wait and wait.... and the sp drifts back to 0.5p.
dfg9999999999999. Clearly you do otherwise why reply to my zero post in the first place?? If you don't like my posts filter me or do one, simple. I really would like to see how you as a poster see whre TOM will be in he next 6 months. You can leave your one liner's betwen here ( ) Pirkc
RE: Tomco pops and Cort plant set up with bio-msar profits07 Oct 2021 06:45
A valid attempt dazzle but some other things you may want to consider in your calc: 1. I would use the numbers from Petroteq which combine the oil + sand combo into one based on $70 WTI crude. 2. 360 days production implies 98.6% availability. 85-90% would be more appropriate for a plant of this nature. 3. If they manage to get 100% finance then this would likely be paid off in production or cash to this would come off the profits. 4. If they don't manage to get 100% funding then there will be some share dilution. 5. Applying a high PE ratio based on your numbers will give an unrealistic market cap so I would use between 7-10. 6. There are also other things i.e MSAR which as yet there is not enough info to build into your calcs. 7. The recent test drilling announcement which from the QFI Q&A presentation will yield MSAR production. TOM need to provide more clarification on this. They clearly believe the 6 week delay to the 5k plant is worth it so we await an update that puts more flesh on the bones. Good attempt though. Mini
Joe, Based on expected profit of $60 per barrel produced including sand. I will leave you to do the maths based on 5000 bbl/d and 42 days production. Like I said I hope it's worth it as they could have done the drilling trials after the 10% was paid. A small placing at 0.6p would have seen the share price fall to current levels without the production loss.
Another 6 weeks of delay which equates to 42 days loss of 5000 bbl/d production and the associated clean sand, or MSAR. Once again the goal posts have moved. I really hope they have thought this one out.
388888888 New warrants @ 0.9p NSL issued 46666666 warrants @ 0.45p for two years These were issued in the November 2020 placing 22.5 million warrants issued to TDI/NSL @0.4p for 2 years (2nd July 2020) They would have to issue an RNS if any are exercised Directors also have options and I am sure there are others floating around
Just before the 2 mins mark Dr Bailey states that they have completed a FEED for 5k plant. Err, was this not Valkor on behalf of Greenfield? It really would be helpful if all 4 of these companies state the relevant ownership of the first plant. As I understand it, Petroteq are the licensor and charge 2% of production. The commercial validity of the process involved a 500 bbl/d pilot plant owned by Petroteq and designed by Valkor, and confirmed by a third party. TOM provided significant funds to modify the plant for low ambient temperature operations. Greenfield have a license to build a 5k plant once they have paid for the land. Valkor will own 29% of TOM on successful completion of the 5k plant TOM own 100% of Greenfield. Petroteq have an NDA which may lead to it being acquired by another company. Please feel free to add more factual ingredients to this messy ****tail.
Good news as expected - I think it is $6MM for a 10kbbl/d MSAR plant so if they can get anywhere near HFO prices it will be more than a worthwhile investment. As others have stated it's another box ticked.
Seems plausible - Should be able to generate 1.3-1.5 MW from a couple of gas engines. Can use on site and export the rest. They are a bit noisy though so not sure if they would comply with any environmental noise restrictions.
Ryan et al need to look at the amount of flaring of associated gas that takes place around the world. The EU carbon foot print targets are a drop in the ocean to what currently takes place around the world. The intelligence level of these ministers beggars belief.
RE: Terms of the JV between TomCo and Valkor21 Sep 2021 16:32
Fadec92 - You sound just as bad as Joe. Valkor lover without foundation. All those 10 recs you received I ask one of them to prove why they are so fantastic. And none of those links to their crappy website please. Sorry, don't bother you will not find anything useful. Anyway as I have previously posted I am done with the Valkor cowboys - we move on and see what the TOM BOD can do to get this project off the ground. I am sure you will all agree with me on that.