Member Info for Salinger

The current process does not produce fuel oil. However, if you bolt on the QFI process, you know the one we’ve been talking about all day, then it will produce low sulphur fuel oil.
Detail matters, as the current process produces thick bitumen, unrefined diesel and sand, the combined value of which has yet to be shown as commercially viable.

"To be clear, the current process produces fuel oil."

Really? That will be news to most I`d think.

"$10/bbl+
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL MARGIN ON CLEANED SAND"

Goodness me Torreaguas, "desperate" is not a word I would use at all, like yourself I understand what will be will be, but I do take issue with posters spouting opinions as facts when the facts are something else entirely.
The only way Greenfield have to get their oil to market is to add expensive solvents, there is NO other way to do it regardless of how clean they get the bitumen, its what PQE have been doing since they started operating the site. You cant pump bitumen, it needs heating to transport and store. This is the fundamental reason it has been unprofitable from the outset and requires very high oil prices to make it work.
I want Tomco to succeed regardless of QFI being involved, not because I will make money but I`m happy for others to do so.

I don`t think some of them want to know the truth, hands over ears come to mind. They need to understand their own investment and realise there is a difference between Utah bitumen and normal market crude. Reality will dawn as you say Pharoah.

You’re flogging a dead horse indigo, the distinction between Utah bitumen and WTI crude is lost on many holders. They seem to think oil is oil and are waiting for the “quality” to be announced.

It’s bitumen guys, the hard sludge you put on roads, can’t be pumped and in terms of content, inferior to normal pumpable crude, which is why Greenfield get a much lower sale price from the refinery.

The addition of solvents allows the bitumen to be pumped and also adds calorific value and ergo an upgrade to a basic standard which is acceptable to a refinery.
On its own as raw bitumen, refineries would not be interested as it would require heated transportation and storage.
This is why it’s of a much lower value than normal crude and also why QFI have been engaged to upgrade the bitumen and turn it directly into a high value USABLE fuel free from refinery input.

Torrea. I think you’ve not grasped the difference between bitumen and crude oil. Cleaning the bitumen of sand and clay does not make it crude oil. The fundamental market value of bitumen is significantly lower than crude oil, much lower, that’s why QFI got involved in the first place.

If they get $70 for the oil and $80 for the sand then I agree, no need for QFI. But they contacted QFIso what does that tell you?

Trading below Brent yesterday by $4, but that’s a side issue tbh, you ignore the basic point that Utahoil sands are bitumen. No amount of chatter changes that fact.

“The sand is not being tested for its suitability, see the RNS from December 20 which I post again. That RNS was following lab tests in Colorado I believe.”

Fair enough, I used the wrong term. My point is that this is the first potential customer for the sand. It’s first use in the real world at a fracking site. They will no doubt feed back and compare with regular supplier. So it does still depend on whether the cracker says yes please I will have more, or no they won’t.

Also Torrea, you keep quoting $70 per barrel for Greenfield oil/bitumen, that’s the price of Brent Crude. It certainly won’t be that figure.
Firstly, Greenfield oil is priced relative to the West Texas Index which is always well below Brent AND it is bitumen NOT crude oil. Can you not see the basic difference. Trying my best to point it out to you but failing miserably. At a guess I’d say Greenfield would get $50 per barrel if Brent was at $70, but that’s a guess, could be lower.

No Torrea I am not missing the point. We’ve known from day one that the clean sand was an extra and would aid the bottom line, that’s not news.
“Helpful” makes a claim that Greenfield are set to be paid $80 per tonne which is not evidenced anywhere, despite the various links it is still an opinion and nothing more.
The sand is currently being tested for its suitability, we await the outcome. I just think it’s irresponsible posting figures like these as fact on a public board when they’re no such thing.
It’s great the POSP is working and obviously the sand at whatever price is a good extra, but the $80 figure is dreamland imo.

« At mine cost is not the same as the delivered cost. »

Exactly, so you can’t use delivered cost when working out income to Greenfield. Up to 75% of delivered cost is taken up by transportation, so the notion Greenfield get $80 per tonne for the sand they produce is patently nonsense.

Torre, just google it, there’s plenty of info out there.

« I think I will take the word of Helpful because of the detailed information.« 

A basic search on google shows that Frac sand sells nowhere near $80 per tonne, not even close, more like $30 and these are prices the purchaser pays not what Greenfield would get paid.
Information can be as detailed as you like, but first it needs to be accurate. Then again for some accuracy doesn’t seem to matter.

Ok, last one. Compare the price of a barrel/tonne of low sulphur fuel oil with a barrel/tonne of Utah bitumen produced at the POSP.
The entire economic argument is in the above comparison and where the “premium to WTI” comes in. It’s the difference between selling low sulphur fuel oil to MSC or low grade bitumen to a refinery. What does your logical brain tell you makes the most money? The sand?

“...the sand output makes more money that the oil output, with or without MSAR.”

Now you are simply delusional. I suggest some of you chaps do a some reading on Utah, bitumen, and WTI crude

“PQE has already confirmed that it can sell its output at a premium to WTI...”

Ok, show the board the exact quote please, good luck finding it. Your comment above is conflating information, Utah bitumen could never ever be sold at a premium to WTI, that’s a simple fact. DYOR as they say.

Whether QFI sign a deal with Greenfield does indeed remain to be seen. However, Greenfield and Tomco are not something QFI are depending upon. They have the largest shipper in the world MSC who intend to complete at least one LONO (biomsar trialed as well) and Morocco’s OCP as clients.

The difference is Tomco have Greenfield and that’s it. It serves the interests of rampers only when posters put up info that at best is misleading. Why do you think Valkor signed their MoU with QFI long before Greenfield came about? They knew then as they do now that bitumen is expensive to recover and upgrade to refinery spec so they need another technology to create commercial value, enter MSAR.

You and many others seem to think that Greenfield/PQE can be a successful standalone business selling raw bitumen to a refinery. This is nonsense as history has shown over and over again. Because of its inferior quality, bitumen from Utah will require sustained and very high crude oil prices to have any chance of commercial success. In a world where there is a glut of oil and consumption set to drop due to more eco friendly alternatives, it’s doubtful if WTI crude prices. could ever meet these needs.

It’s great that the POSP is operating again and I’m certain it does the job, but ultimately what it’s doing is producing more bitumen at a cheaper price with much less environmental impact. Refineries want crude spec oils to refine not bitumen, which is why they’ve been adding solvents to make a sale from day one. Ultimately the third party verification process should flag these issues up which will be no surprise to Steve Byles or Mr Potter.

So you are equating Utah bitumen with WTI crude? You really shouldn’t compare apples with pears. Do you honestly believe PQE get the current WTI crude price when they deliver their bitumen to the little refinery? Of course they don’t. In fact they ha e to add significant quantities of solvent just so it meets basic spec in order for the refinery to accept it.
Get real, bitumen is NOT crude oil. QFI and MSAR is what will eventually make Greenfield lots of money so probably best not equate a sows ear with a silk purse.

Who says they haven’t produced the 60 tonnes? Poor effort Hughie, but in keeping with everything about you.