Member Info for orslega

A few people have speculated that the site being targeting by Tomco is the old Crown site (currently advertised as for sale - Tomco have said that they have identified a site) - this is very close Petroteq site at Vernal (4 miles?). It seems to me that this makes perfect sense, accelerating the production timeline - obviously the existing plant will need revamping for Petroteq tech - but the site has the resource, and is permitted.

According a promotional video below I found digging - when KTIA were the then owners failed to make it work- like many other also before KTIA - there is a 160M barrel resource - 30-40 years + of production at 10K - so here we are now 10 years on where others have failed at huge expense, can Petroteq technology succeed?

Read the tech blurb in the link - the methodology used by Petroteq is different and much greener. But also interesting in point 1 they talk about the clay separation issues - in the Proactice video Cody couple of weeks ago talked precisely about this - refinement to the "middle section" from memory. So same issues but now new tech : )

http://www.jamindustrial.com/blog/asphalt-ridge-technology-review

Fingers crossed!

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/oil-sands-win-favor-on-wall-street-after-years-in-shale-s-shadow-1.1536130.amp.html

Good interview

Not dated but a few weeks back.

Goldman Sachs advises investors look at oil-sands stocks
There was a story on CNN Bloomberg, this morning, in which Goldman Sachs suggests that investors should take another look at Oil-sands stocks for new investment opportunities in the energy sector as the shale-oil stocks are taking a real beating of late and the practice of fracking is seeing a backlash now. Petroteq Energy's new technology could be arriving on scene just at the right time as it's technolgy is much cleaner than traditional extraction methods as depicted in the Canadian Oilsands of Northern Alberta. Everyone has seen the stream of Hollywood celebrities flocking up to Fort MacMurray and showing the desolate landscape, toxic waste settling ponds and coining the viral hashtag #dirty oil and telling the world to not buy Canadian oil. The Canadian oil industry has been given a collosal black eye. If PQE can get their plant producing oil at 10,000 barrels of oil per day this will be a game changer for the industry around the world and for PQE and it's partners. I can see a number of the US shale-producers looking to branch out into the oil sands of Utah as the investment costs would not be as great as they have been using the older and less efficient technology of the Canadian oil sands. They could make money with a smaller plant, smaller enviromental footprint and the Utah oilsands are situated close to the refineries at Salt Lake City, Utah. The bigger companies such as Exxon Mobile, Chevron, Shell and Phillips 66 just to name a few may also consider taking a more serious look at this technology as well. Exxon and Chevron have pulled out of the Canadian oilsands and are now freed up to consider such oilsands investments much closer to home. Any one of these companies could decide to make a major investment in PQE and it's partners to enable the development of a plant that can generate the same amount of oil output as their Fort MacMurray plants did but significantly cleaner and cheaper. Their Fort Mac operations required an oil price of about $75.00 to $80.00 per barrels just to break even but if they only need an oil price of $30.00 US to generate revenue that would be quite attractive to them from a business perspective. Utah could be see a major oil boom thanks to PQE, it's partners and their extraction technology.

“We expect the FEED to be completed in Q1 2021 following third-party verification works. A potential site on which to build Greenfield's first 10,000 bopd plant has been identified and is being assessed which includes a pre-existing Large Mining Permit and suitable site infrastructure to enable construction to commence swiftly once funding has been secured. Although there will be challenges ahead, our firm objective is to maintain momentum and make significant progress with this project in the near future.”

Many guessing where this is - probably close to Petroteq site in Vernal. Permitted - this will accelerate Tomco plans once green light.

PQE RNS 27/1/2021:

George Stapleton, Petroteq COO, commented: "We have brought the POSP online in stages since commencing ?processing operations in the week beginning the 11th of January, starting with commissioning of the front end of the ?plant and moving from ore crushing to mixing and extraction of bitumen. All upgrades are working as designed and ?the plant has shown that it should be capable of operating continuously. Once we have completed fine-tuning the ?various plant systems, we will then look to increase production rates and move to a two-shift operation. The relative ?ease with which the plant was restarted, after having been shut down for approximately nine months while design ?upgrades were implemented, is a testament to the hard work of both the design and construction teams."?

The clear priority of the current trial is for Greenfield/Valkor is to ensure that the plant is capable of continuous production. Only when they are happy with operations will they move to providing Quadrise with the test samples. Potential bunker fuel for Quadrise is just one of many sales products the plant will be capable of producing with the Petroteq technology.

No point sending samples if the plant doesn't produce! One important step first - hopefully they are nearly there.

well maybe the reason why is because it is not considered material disclosable issue ie the matter is in hand. Keep in mind that reporting requirements on TMX exchange are far more stringent than AIM.

If every company had to disclose commercial negotiations at every level nothing would ever get done!

somehow I don't think Valkor would buy another 4M shares and the COO buy 1M shares in Petroteq, like they recently both have, if there was risk of the surety not being paid. Looking at the correspondence Petroteq have already paid £400K in surety, they were looking to spread any balance. It will get sorted - one way or other - Petroteq seem to have a bottomless pit for potential lenders/investors.

The current oilsands extraction activity is very different to oil shale processing. The current Greenfield works relates entirely to oilsands not shale.

They might have some oilsands on the existing licenses but - as far as I am aware they haven't been very vocal. They have not said if the existing acreage/licences are suitable for the oilsands process - it might be but very possible they have their eye on other acreage.

In particular note their 16/11/2020 RNS - last para - this suggests new target acreage to me "suitable site". If it was on their existing leases they would have said, imo

"Approximately £1.5 million will be retained by the Company with the intention that it is used, inter alia, to facilitate the securing of a site by Greenfield for the first proposed commercial 10,000 bopd plant using Petroteq's Oil Sands Technology pursuant to the Petroteq Licence. Once a suitable site has been identified, the Company intends on providing a loan to Greenfield, which will be on the same terms as the Loan, which will be used to secure the site.

Whilst there is no certainty that it can be secured, a potential site in Uintah County, Utah, USA, has been identified by Greenfield that the Board believes has a number of key attributes that make it attractive. These attributes include, inter alia, the required infrastructure to enable construction to commence quickly, the required permits, and the land containing appropriate resources. Further announcements will be made in this regard as appropriate."

This is to do with landowner requiring financial surety for the future - disturbance through mining - common clause in all mining contracts - when mining completed, many years away the miner has to leave the land in good state - this is surety to ensure this happens.

It gets reviewed as mining progresses and there is a further amount obviously due soon. Petroteq have been pretty much cash strapped for a while so hold off paying bigger bills - no doubt that this is in hand - otherwise mining has to stop.

Petroteq technology which Tomco hopes to use is producing. Oil price/trend will makes financing for all companies involved easier.

Oil prices at $40 or lower make a 10K plant questionable - so pricing/future trend is important regardless whether producing or not.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Hits-60-For-The-First-Time-Since-Pandemic-Started.amp.html

less the frac and aggregate sand they (Petroteq) are planning to sell - assume Tomco will follow the Petroteq model. Independent testing at Petroteq site (Asphalt Ridge) shows 70% of clean sand extracted as part of the process is frac quality. That's massive addition to top line /cost of sales. Means one barrel of oil will produce sales revenue over $100.

wherever tomco decide to build their 10K plant (assuming all goes well) the sands will need testing - frac sand commands $50+ a ton - aggregate/cement $20 per ton. For every barrel of oil produced, produces 1.7 tons of sand. There is a demand in Utah for frac sand - much of it being transported from Wisconsin at hughe costs.

....that's why many are saying that oil is now the by product for Petroteq : ) Quite extraordinary really.

Expecting sales sand offtake agreement any time (assuming of course alls going well at AR).

Simon Potter (CEO at Bahamas Petroleum) is not John Potter - if that was you question.

(Bahamas Petroleum announced a failed drill this morning)

Follow the money - George Stapleton (COO Petroteq) and Valkor both buying last week speaks volumes.

Petroteq should fly when they announce successful results of current trials. Ground breaking and first of its kind technology.

Tomco will follow but probably not as much initially (in time it will relative to its current low market cap, like Petroteq ).

Good luck all.

So they now own 16% of Petroteq.

Huge sign of confidence that the tech works. Bring it on.

Anybody think Steve Byle is liking the current trials? Lol

https://s3.amazonaws.com/content.stockpr.com/sec/0001567619-21-002239/0001567619-21-002239.pdf

back in 2012 and looking at this link Petroteq (then known as MCW - I see Jerry Bailey then CEO, and still today a director of PQE) didn't own the oil sands acreage they own today - so the oilsands then were supplied by a third party, TME - those sands were then processed by MCW (PQE) and then TME supplied the sands fracking industry under 5 year contract. So always been the potential for frac sands, but until now no commercial production meant no sand supplies - fingers crossed all change : )

https://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/20/second-us-tar-sands-mine-owned-former-exxonmobil-and-chevron-exec-approved-utah

But they have currently said in RNS “ The Company is now working to develop sales channels for the frac sand and aggregate components of the tailings with a view towards maximizing the value of the clean sand tailings."

I cannot imagine that a contract entered into 9 years ago is still valid particularly as they have never produced any fracking sand in that timeline. Plus the local fracking industry/demand/landscape has substantially changed in last 2/3 years, never mind 9 years ago. Many oil cos using fracking methods have put a hold on production due to collapse in oil price and high costs associated.

Anyway expecting a new offtake agreement for frac and aggregate. Good.

apologies for the duplicate post - lse is a crap platform!!