Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Chrisev1
ASX, 88e, Cenkos
Chrisev
I have raised it through 3 different official channels, waiting on answers now
HSG
Of course I am staying on point
The test was to find a sustainable flow, not some momentary peak
The sustainable flow is what matters, thats what multipliers are based on.
Handspring
In this case the critical information is how much water fell in total, over the entire rain event
Neversatisfied
You are defending the indefensible, here are 88e's words from the RNS Appendix A
Its a 16 hr period from initial oil to surface, clear as a bell
The well
produced at an average oil cut of 4% following
initial oil to surface, with instantaneous rates
observed during the 16 hour period varying as the
well continued to clean up at managed fluid flow
rate of ~170 bbls/d with a calculated total volume
during the flow back period following
establishment of oil cut of ~4 stk bbls.
Neversatisfied
You are minimizing the gravity
It flowed oil for 16 hours, and produced 4 barrels of oil in that time
Neversatisfied
What are you talking about, stk tank barrels is the measure of oil flowed
Neversatisfied
That is pure undiluted hogwash, 88e were there to get a flow rate, to assess whether that flow rate could be multiplied up into a commercial flow, in a horizontal multi stage fractured development well
Going on 88e's projected upper limit of 12X that would be 6 X 12 = 72 barrels a day from a well that will cost around US $20m, not a chance in hell of being viable on that
Neversatisfied
Fine for you then, you have concluded that the SMDB only flowed 4 barrels in its test.
Others are still thinking it flowed 50 barrels, dont you think they deserve a bit more information on, what is the most credible, the 50 which would be OK, or the 4 which is poor
Given that 4 barrels is the total production over 16 hrs of oil production
Evidenced by
88e announced it, in the required Appendix A
It closely matches the 4% oil oil cut from the 114 barrels of total fluids flow in the 16 hrs
88e are aware the public have discovered and focused on the 4 barrel figure, as an indicator of failure, and done nothing to correct it. If it were an error, it would be an OMG moment, fix it immediately
The next question becomes, a trust issue. The RNS was written with so much spin, that the market concluded 50 bopd was the result. Even seasoned oil field geologists accepted it as a truth, as people that are accustomed the unvarnished truth do, but it is now clear, it was a spin, that obscured the truth of the matter
I have been working on decoding the announcement, from what I conclude the 4 barrels in the stock tank stands, also acknowledge it is a calculated number as stated by 88e, IMO as the stock tank gauge is not sufficiently accurate to make such a fine measurement
Looking for a cross check from the 4% average oil cut and the managed fluid flow rate of ~170 bbl/d over the 16 hr oil cut period
170 bbls per day for 16 hrs, is 67% of 170 = 114 bbls total
114 x 4% average oil cut over the same 16 hrs = 4.56 barrels of oil
Its not a precise match but close enough for me, given the number of `~ approximates and possible rounding errors, ie is the 4% a rounding of a lesser number say 3.6%, or the 4 barrels a rounding of 4.4 bbls
Sharebel
The spin cycle is over, its rinse and repeat next, then to hung out to dry
Skippy
The interview is from 2017, first clue D Wall is not the MD anymore
Skippy
There is a hole in the logic, in that oil cut took place over 16 hours, so when the 50 bopd rate occurred it must have been at that rate for a short time. Further the drawing on the well while it was flowing oil at whatever rate only produced 4 barrels of oil over 16 hours. Which means the average flow rate over the 16 hrs is 0.25 of a barrel per hour, on a 24 hr basis, 6 bopd
Taxi, thats not correct
The company has a right to issue 15% in shares that are not approved by shareholders every twelve months
At the AGM an additional 10% issue capacity can be approved by shareholders,
25% capacity to issue shares without shareholder approval all up
Any shares that are issued under this capacity, can then be ratified by shareholders at a General meeting, they are then approved share issues.
Which then removes them from the unapproved 25% capacity ledger, so allowing more shares to be issued without shareholder approval
Sharebel
To whom Facts are ridiculous, I see it all now
Stas20
Understanding is not your strength is it. ELI5 for you. The email to 88e asking this question is, confirmation that 88e know there is confusion about the meaning, but have chosen not to act to address it
"I and others emailed them for clarification on the 24.8 stk barrels v 42 bopd average in the USFS test, no answers given by 88e"
Skippysb01
The experts and non experts are not confused, the interpretation of what it means has been repeated over and over here.
Investor are choosing not to believe or acknowledge it, for their own reasons
SSccss
You are getting it now, it is a monumental blunder by 88e, they wrote an entirely ambiguous RNS, twice in a row.
I and others emailed them for clarification on the 24.8 stk barrels v 42 bopd average in the USFS test, no answers given by 88e
The true meaning has been uncovered
Now investors know how 88e massage the message, trust drops to zero
Taxi, 09:05 that's not correct
This is how they do it, shareholder ratify prior issues at a GM, as was done at this meeting, every share that is ratified by share holders is then available for reissue
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02753879.pdf
RESOLUTION 1 – RATIFICATION OF PRIOR ISSUE OF SHORTFALL OFFER PLACEMENT
SHARES – LISTING RULE 7.1
To consider and, if thought fit, to pass, with or without amendment, the following
resolution as an ordinary resolution:
“That, for the purposes of Listing Rule 7.4 and for all other purposes,
Shareholders ratify the issue of 675,000,000 Shares on the terms and
conditions set out in the Explanatory Statement.”
A voting exclusion statement applies to this Resolution. Please see below