Member Info for OandGeo

This technology has shown everything it needs to on paper. It is a growing concern how little progress has been made by various trial partners on actually pushing forward with trial agreements.

The number of potential trials is encouraging though, as well as the size/maturity of the interested parties. MSC for example, huge entity.

Enormous businesses deal within incredibly bureaucratic paradigms. Quadrise doesn't need a shipping titan to get field hours on its product.

I think these ongoing trial contract delays are understandable, and are not preventable. However, I would begin to be worried in the next 6 months if Quadrise doesn't show some flexibility with their trial contract approach. They need engine hours in real word scenarios, they don't need to wait on these monolithic entities to get a trial going. There are a wealth of small/mid size options without the red tape. Pursue these aggressively.

Https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/12/13/3204937/0/en/Integrated-Rail-and-Resources-Acquisition-Corp-Announces-Closing-of-Business-Combination-with-Tar-Sands-Holdings-II-LLC-and-Future-of-Uinta-Infrastructure-Group-Corp.html

https://www.ksl.com/article/51432553/railway-resource-expansion-bound-for-uintah-county-projected-to-inject-87m-in-local-economy

http://pdf.secdatabase.com/1479/0001013762-25-001698.pdf

Thanks beardozer, is that on the Cavitas site? Do you have a link by chance?

SC, re: they want the regulations so that everyone in the shipping industry is playing to the same rules, no cheating by polluting in order to offer the best rates to clients.

I hear you and understand this position, but the assumption is more regulation only ends in cleaner air and a level playing field. That's not what happens in reality, especially when stringent measures are applied in a very short timeline. IMO 2020 was implemented this way and resulted in a global shipping crisis - do read the article! Quick summary: implementing harsh fuel quality standards on a rapid timeline global fuel suppliers can't keep up with results in experimental fuels of questionable and untested quality at every port on the globe. This kind of scenario is useful for QED, it's not useful for giant shipping conglomerates. We think of it leveling the playing field, but timelines enforced by these 911 climate measures increase the difficulty of conducting business.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nishandegnarain/2020/12/21/shipping-gate-why-toxic-vlsfo-fuel-is-such-a-danger-for-global-shipping/

Why do you all think the NZF is necessary for any of these Quadrise deals to go through? IMO 2020 sulfur limitations were plenty to incentivize global markets towards MSAR and derivatives. And plenty to spark VLSFO 'frankenstein' markets, and leave record numbers of ships stranded with gunked engines worldwide.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nishandegnarain/2020/12/21/shipping-gate-why-toxic-vlsfo-fuel-is-such-a-danger-for-global-shipping/

"It would be a major setback if NZF isn't adopted" ....major setback for who? Who will operate less efficiently if NZF isn't mandated? Remember we live in an age where carbon capture technology is being realized...there are many opinions on how best to protect the economy and the environment.

A note that a large list of corporate endorsements including MSC and Maersk means almost nothing - these entities are self-required to set ESG goals, many of which are tied to subsidies. It doesn't mean the world shipping trade functions more effectively with NZF. NZF certainly isn't required for MSC to run a trial of MSAR.

Due for an update from Lafayette Energy, it's been March 19 since we've last heard from them..

@beardozer, a barrel of Utah oil is worth at least 20,000 Tomco shares today - lol!

"Once these permits are approved, then Tomco will have a project with an estimated £1.7Bn cash flow "

No I mean I see your point and you're right the entry cost is lower for wells. Wells aren't a magic fix for Tomco though. They don't have money to drill a few hundred wells. There are 2 wells drilled a mile a away and after 13 months Valkor/HSO (who actually have a budget for optimization) still haven't figured out how to produce them. Might be close to figuring it out, but it's unclear.

Tomco can pay money to drill wells and let them sit also. It doesn't matter until the problem of getting oil out of the ground is solved. Solving that problem takes money. Tomco doesn't have much money.

"If mining was better than drilling, Valkor, Lafayette, Trio, etc would me mining, they are not!"

Well, they sort of are if you followed Byle's comment in Quadrise RNS from January. "During 2025 we are planning to increase oil production through the drilling of additional wells and bringing our first mined oil sands plant online." So we just don't know who's plant it is but Valkor's involved.

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/quadrise/news/rns/story/rg1lk0r

IRRX is planning to put a plant online by end of 2026 as well. Again, the unattractive element about plants is the amount of leverage required and the ~12 month construction time.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1854795/000121390025046611/ea024317301ex99-1_integrated.htm

The enthusiasm around drilling permits is appreciated...I don't understand how having permits would suddenly equal success.

- HSO/Valkor drilled 2 wells nearby roughly 13 months ago. Through various related parties, it's become obvious that getting oil out of the ground has been a struggle. Heater issues, water injection issues, and silence since they said they were going to install steam injection in April. If there's a method of production, I have a feeling permit approvals will be faster.

- Mining has always been Tomco's goal in Utah. Some here may not be aware of it, but Tomco attempted for about 3 years to get a large scale loan, over $150m to buy the remainder of TSII, and build 2x 5000 bpd plants. They tried borrowing against their land, bond based lending, and several other methods before Potter sadly passed away.

- Margins are better the larger the operation, but it begs one to wonder, this little $10m company that fails for years on end to secure a giant loan, why are they not adjusting their business plan to fund a smaller, scalable plant? Also frustrating they didn't try to diversify and drill a well when they had some cash.

They're waiting on the HSO/Valkor wells and have no money to develop the drilling production process. I can't say I 'know', but I sure think they're in this situation because they spent years chasing a business plan that doesn't align with reality. Shareholders need to remind Malcom of this and ensure the path forward aligns with reality.

Tomco's success is tied to general success in the area, by others. This is not due to Tomco's inability to get funding, but rather Tomco's disconnect from the reality that large scale funding is out of reach. In lieu of this, Tomco has failed to adapt a smaller, scalable business plan.

Drilling: At last update, the cyclic steam injection system was being installed at one of the HSO wells. It's been a year since they've been drilled and they haven't established a consistent method of getting oil out of the ground seemingly. Heavy Sweet Oil, Lafayette Energy, and Trio are interested in drilling. Trio just allowed an option to expire that would have gotten them more acreage at Asphalt Ridge. At the same time, they entered an LOI to buy acreage with HSO at PR Springs down the road.

Mining: On Jan 15, Quadrise quoted Valkor's Steve Byle saying their first mining plant would be online in 2025. They haven't said which plant or who it belongs to, it seems to be a private entity. On May 9, Integrated Rail & Resources, a SPAC that's buying Tar Sands II, indicated they would have a plant online by December 2026.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1854795/000121390025041495/ea024146301ex99-1_integ.htm

For those that don't know, a proposal has been in the pipeline to add an 88 mile stretch of railway from the Valkor targeted area to a larger national rail hub. It would directly improve the margins on any product coming out of the ground from Valkor (who is paying to use the Quadrise MMU multifuel manufacturing unit). The environmentalist groups hate this and have been fighting the railroad in court. Last year it traveled all the way to the US Supreme Court, and has been sitting there for nearly a year. This last Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the railway to continue - a tremendous win for Utah. It's a fascinating legal case to read about if you're interested. This is something to follow, if you're interested in the Quadrise footprint in Utah.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/politics/u-s-supreme-court-rules-on-uinta-basin-railway

""Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decision making, not to paralyze it," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the opinion.

The ruling is a win for the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition and the state of Utah, which have pushed the project for years.

The Uinta Basin Railway would be an 88-mile rail line that would help get oil from eastern Utah to other parts of the country for refining.

"I think it’s telling this was a unanimous decision. This was not close," Gov. Cox told reporters on Thursday. "We’re finally putting a stop to these extremist groups that have been using a law that was meant to make our environment cleaner and to help humans progress. They’ve done the exact opposite.""

8-0 decision. This certainly improves the margins for getting heavy oil to market from Asphalt Ridge or PR Springs. Would be relevant to keep up with any further approval and construction timelines. This has been in the works for years.

Https://www.fox13now.com/news/politics/u-s-supreme-court-rules-on-uinta-basin-railway

""Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decision making, not to paralyze it," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the opinion.

The ruling is a win for the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition and the state of Utah, which have pushed the project for years.

The Uinta Basin Railway would be an 88-mile rail line that would help get oil from eastern Utah to other parts of the country for refining.

"I think it’s telling this was a unanimous decision. This was not close," Gov. Cox told reporters on Thursday. "We’re finally putting a stop to these extremist groups that have been using a law that was meant to make our environment cleaner and to help humans progress. They’ve done the exact opposite.""

8-0 decision. This certainly improves the margins for getting heavy oil to market from Asphalt Ridge or PR Springs. Would be relevant to keep up with any further approval and construction timelines. This has been in the works for years.

this appears unrelated (at least directly) to our group, and more related to ovintiv. is there overlap in the interest i wonder, now that we've putting the steam system in?

in the matter of formal rulemaking to adopt the r644 carbon sequestration rule pertaining to section 40-11 and the obtaining of primacy for class vi geologic sequestration wells

https://ut-dnr-ogm-prod-sf-public-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/a0scs00000oitmneal_1744310085615_2025_032_997_04_20250409.1_noticeo***encyaction.pdf

Yes beardozer!

10% of $billion market cap, giant cash injection, low risk > owning the entire company, further prolonged difficulty raising cash, diluting shareholders into oblivion, and shouldering extraordinary risk

It has come up again several times since this press release - although I'd need to find the links. It's an equity deal in exchange for majority stake in Greenfield. It's clearly difficult to raise money for a mining facility in Tomco's position - we need a way forward. And yes I've pushed this with the board - who else has?

March 28, 2024 - https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/tomco/news/rns/story/x4o28kw

"As announced previously, the most likely and favoured scenario will involve the Group potentially farming-out or disposing of a majority stake in Greenfield to a partner(s) in return for, inter alia, certain upfront cash consideration, a carried interest or continuing minority equity participation for TomCo in Greenfield without the need for it to make further capital contributions and the provision of a sizeable funding package for Greenfield's development."

It's almost as if the board hasn't received pressure from shareholders to take the Greenfield JV deal on the table.

Crownos is right here, there's so much downside if Tomco isn't able to squeeze out funding for even a well or two. They'll essentially go under if they don't get money to drill even a single well on the path they're on. I'm hyper skeptical of the idea large scale funding is still on the table.

If 1-2 wells get funded, and do well in production, it would be a snail trickle of revenue they might be able to snowball into more funding eventually, if everything goes right. Tomco sees a future with an eventual plant and this would be an amazing potential outcome of many hundreds of millions of dollars in value someday.

They claim though that a JV option is still on the table in exchange for equity. I'd personally choose less risk for a JV and even the opportunity to be a $100m company at this point. Shareholders would still win massively. The JV equity stake in Tomco would be an equity stake in Greenfield specifically. If you wanted to stay in and not cash out, you could wait for them to start another mining subsidiary and continue the effort.

I feel like the board need to stop looking at billion dollar market cap dreams, and think about how to win now at the lowest risk possible. It's their responsibility to shareholders. You can't argue they've had their time to give it their best shot.

Maybe they know something we don't - ok. Then say so. But they can't because of AIM restrictions. So if they can't tell us outright why this high risk route continues to be taken, IMO - take the JV. Or wait for HSO production numbers, but strong headwinds will persist for Tomco even if the two HSO wells do good.

Would you vote for the JV option at an AGM sn88?

It sure would be nice to lower the risk and sign a joint venture...

Regardless of the US administration in charge, Tomco is in an incredibly risky position right now that could be immediately remedied by entering an joint venture agreement in exchange for Greenfield equity. This recent RNS shows no operational progress since well before Potter's death, other than liquidation of the company's only owned land asset.

The Tomco board stands to lose very little if 2025 efforts fail to find funding or revenue. Shareholders stand to be diluted into an essentially irrecoverable oblivion if no progress is made.

Remind me again why we aren't collectively lobbying for them to accept this joint venture? Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result? Shareholders, let's de-risk this thing and get the equity deal done!