Member Info for originalharrystamper

Hi Phyl, I'm not sure what you're looking at but it looks pretty accurate to me - blue buys at 23.7, red sells around 23.02 and a few now in the late 22's.

Evening all, Great recap once again OT! Can’t wait for this flow of news when it finally arrives! The EP is the catalyst for a plethora of updates that SAE are probably sat on but can’t move forward with

The 300,000 'sell' is a buy so I'd take that as all trades at this price are buys and the sells will be those near the 2p mark

https://www.*************.net/serinus-energy-increasing-production-increasing-cashflow-interview/

So, SENX owed the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) $32.5m which was made up of a CFD of $20m and accrued interest of $12.5m. The EBRD has now agreed a deal with SENX to accept $16.5m and 9.9% of the allocated shares (at no cost) to settle $32.5m of debt! Wow! Not only that, they will not dispose of these shares for at least 12 months. So good was this deal that SENX raised $21m over night (oversubscribed) at 2.00p per share!

Where is this money going then?:

The net proceeds will now be used to pay $16.5m to the EBRD (plus the 9.9%) to FULLY pay off the loan and the remainder for the installation of the first pumps in a well work over programme on the Sabria field in Tunisia. The Sabria field is a 358 mmboe Oil Initially in Place (OIIP) oilfield that to date has had a recovery of 1.2% of the OIIP. The Company believes that this field is an excellent candidate for an artificial lift programme as to date NO pumps have been installed in this field. This project is predicted by SGS to realise an incremental 3,960 boe/d of gross production!

The Company has already increased annual average production from 379 boe/d in 2017 to 2,415 boe/d in the nine months to 30 September 2020.

Additionally, SENX are planning to begin drilling the Moftinu-1008 production well in the Moftinu field early in 2021. This well, upon successful completion, will be tied into the production facilities at the Moftinu Gas Plant. Similar in design and target zones to the Company's three previous production wells, the Company anticipates initial production of approximately 5.0 mmscf/d. They plan to drill a second well at the Sancrai prospect which is located 8.5km to the south west of Moftinu.

They have also reduced the per barrel of oil equivalent cost base from USD22.81/boe in 2016 to USD8.96/boe in the nine months to 30 September of 2020!

Hi ST - It does sound like a lot when you first read it but on closer detailed reading, I don't feel its of concern at all. Of all the questions they have asked there now remains just 2 that require additional details; Question 4 (water emissions impact assessment and Question 9 (impact of aerial emissions on ecological receptors). It can therefore be assumed that the other 9 (there were 11 in total) have been answered to the required standard. Additionally, further clarification of their FPMP (Fire Prevention and Mitigation Plan) is required but that is to be expected given that NRW are asking for a Fire Prevention plan for infrastructure that has not been built yet and thus cannot be built to prove a FPMP if they haven't agreed what standards they are trying to achieve by way of the IED regulations for EP (Art. 50 or 51) - it feels like a catch 22 situation, hence their responses generally stating that “Full details will be added to the FPMP on completion of the EPC detailed design". - which will be produced once EP is approved I guess?

The other document is equally detailed but on closer inspection, again, is only after further clarification/detail. In simplistic terms, they want to know the following (these are my opinions only):

Q1. Will SUP meet all relevant operating conditions requirements of Article 50 of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)?
Q2. If not, do you want us (NRW) to consider any changes i.a.w. Art. 51? If you do want us (NRW) to consider changes, please provide the following - a) clear alternative conditions, in terms of time and temperature, which your proposed process will be capable of achieving Art. 51 and b) evidence and justification that the alternative conditions proposed will ensure that the requirements of IED Article 51 are met.
Q3. Whether you choose Art. 50 or Art. 51, please provide further validation evidence that the proposed combustion
will be met
Q4. Please provide plans for how the proposed combustion conditions will be verified experimentally
Q5. Any further supporting information?

Cheers for the comments OT and Phyl, really appreciate it

To me, in layman's terms, I believe that Art. 51 seems the logical step to alleviate this constant back and forth of what seems to be the problems of meeting Art. 50 regulations. Art. 51 proposes that, "conditions different from those laid down in Article 50(1), (2) and (3) and, as regards the temperature, paragraph 4 of that Article and specified in the permit for certain categories of waste or for certain thermal processes, may be authorised by the competent authority provided the other requirements of this Chapter are met.

Part 4: Second question from NRW proposing that there is an option to ask NRW to consider a change to the operating conditions - 2. If, having regard for your answer to question 1 above, you want Natural Resources Wales to consider a change to any of the operating conditions specified in IED Article 50, as may be allowed by IED Article 51, then confirm this request in writing and provide the following written information. If IED Article 51 is not relevant to your application, you may ignore this question:
a. Propose clear alternative conditions, in terms of time and temperature, and other parameters as necessary, which your proposed process will be capable of achieving, and which will ensure that the requirement of IED Article 51 is met. Do this for all instances where Article 50 requirements are not expected to be met or otherwise require alteration as a result of your proposals.
We note your response dated 14/09/20 to our Schedule 5 Notice dated 29/07/20 (Question 2) and in particular the final sentence, “As such we believe that consideration of IED Article 51 authorisation of different conditions from those specified in Article 50 is warranted in this case should this prove necessary under any and all operating conditions of the plant”. However, we cannot consider a case for an IED Article 51 authorisation unless it is clear whether or not you propose to meet Article 50, and unless alternative operating conditions are established which will ensure that the requirements of IED Article 51 are met.
We expect that alternative conditions shall be proposed by the applicant, and specified in the same manner as IED Article 50, i.e. in terms of a minimum time and minimum temperature to which gas resulting from the incineration of waste is raised in a controlled and homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfavourable conditions.

Part 3: Question from NRW regarding whether SAE can meet Art. 50 - 1. Provide a clear written assessment of whether your proposed waste combustion will meet all relevant operating conditions requirements of Article 50 of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) relating to temperature and residence time of the resulting gas. This shall include assessment against Paragraph 2, 3, and 4 (a) & (b) of Article 50 and any other clauses that you consider relevant to your assessment. Provide full justification to explain your conclusion.

"We need this information as part of our assessment of whether Article 50 requirements will be met".

Part 2: What is Art. 51? - Authorisation to change operating conditions

1. Conditions different from those laid down in Article 50(1), (2) and (3) and, as regards the temperature, paragraph 4 of that Article and specified in the permit for certain categories of waste or for certain thermal processes, may be authorised by the competent authority provided the other requirements of this Chapter are met. Member States may lay down rules governing these authorisations.

2. For waste incineration plants, the change of the operating conditions shall not cause more residues or residues with a higher content of organic polluting substances compared to those residues which could be expected under the conditions laid down in Article 50(1), (2) and (3).

3. Emissions of total organic carbon and carbon monoxide from waste co-incineration plants, authorised to change operating conditions according to paragraph 1 shall also comply with the emission limit values set out in Part 3 of Annex VI.

Emissions of total organic carbon from bark boilers within the pulp and paper industry co-incinerating waste at the place of its production which were in operation and had a permit before 28 December 2002 and which are authorised to change operating conditions according to paragraph 1 shall also comply with the emission limit values set out in Part 3 of Annex VI.

4. Member States shall communicate to the Commission all operating conditions authorised under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and the results of verifications made as part of the information provided in accordance with the reporting requirements under Article 72.

Part 1: What is Art. 50? - Operating conditions

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075

1. Waste incineration plants shall be operated in such a way as to achieve a level of incineration such that the total organic carbon content of **** and bottom ashes is less than 3 % or their loss on ignition is less than 5 % of the dry weight of the material. If necessary, waste pre-treatment techniques shall be used.

2. Waste incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a way that the gas resulting from the incineration of waste is raised, after the last injection of combustion air, in a controlled and homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfavourable conditions, to a temperature of at least 850 °C for at least two seconds.

Waste co-incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a way that the gas resulting from the co-incineration of waste is raised in a controlled and homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfavourable conditions, to a temperature of at least 850 °C for at least two seconds.

If hazardous waste with a content of more than 1 % of halogenated organic substances, expressed as chlorine, is incinerated or co-incinerated, the temperature required to comply with the first and second subparagraphs shall be at least 1 100 °C.

In waste incineration plants, the temperatures set out in the first and third subparagraphs shall be measured near the inner wall of the combustion chamber. The competent authority may authorise the measurements at another representative point of the combustion chamber.

3. Each combustion chamber of a waste incineration plant shall be equipped with at least one auxiliary burner. This burner shall be switched on automatically when the temperature of the combustion gases after the last injection of combustion air falls below the temperatures set out in paragraph 2. It shall also be used during plant start-up and shut-down operations in order to ensure that those temperatures are maintained at all times during these operations and as long as unburned waste is in the combustion chamber.

The auxiliary burner shall not be fed with fuels which can cause higher emissions than those resulting from the burning of gas oil as defined in Article 2(2) of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels (36), liquefied gas or natural gas.

4. Waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants shall operate an automatic system to prevent waste feed

Evening all, lots of info to read through there on the NRW correspondence and as Phyl has reminded us, was to be expected given the importance of what is trying to be achieved here. For those that have been here long enough you will recall that this isn't the first, second or even third time that NRW have requested further info. You may also recall that the SP was minimally affected by these requests. One of the previous communications was a request for further time to evaluate and decide, which was agreed upon as the 31/12/2020. The EP is SAE's main focus and therefore they will have the very best of personnel working on this. It is THE critical piece of the process that allows all other steps to follow. It will not be taken lightly - this will have every inch of attention it deserves, no question (imo). With that in mind, I did follow up with some further research on the point regarding Art. 50 and Art. 51. - I will post in parts after this post:

Simple but effective!

Time to choose a stable average down price once the mms have played with this. They don't get admitted until the 17th Dec so plenty of time to watch, might even get sub 2p...

It was always going to be oversubscribed at that price! Thoughts on open price? Been so quiet in here for so long, I don’t expect a rush to sell off as there have been so few buys lately and with the SP bring almost double it’s current value only a few minths ago, the loss would be even greater to sell now?

I can see the tremendous upside to it regarding clearing the EBRD debt - absolute no brainer but to release that RNS after close I feel is very underhand and calculated. At least I’m not at as much of a loss as the 2 directors who bought in Oct at 5.86p! I’m assuming they knew something like this was in the cards and if they were prepared to buy at that price then I’ll wait and see how long it takes to recover. I guess my short term punt is now a longer term hold, ha!

How low can you go when a company releases a placement RNS 5 minutes after the market closes? I wish I could write how I really feel right now but I’d no doubt lose my LSE account. Absolute disgrace.

Live - Can’t buy any, offered sell at 24.65. Good sign

This share is infuriating at times - nothing but good news and positive media attention on a daily basis yet the SP always falls the following day after a rise and once again finds its comfort zone of 24/25p

Don’t be silly mate, you’ve brought a much to the table. It’s only their proposed way forward to exclude - it does go on to say they ‘welcome views on the proposed drafting changes to the CfD contract to give effect to the government’s decision to exclude’