Member Info for Wolster69

Overall a decent RNS early today but a couple of concerning comments in there are the balance sheet options one already mentioned by others, and also the "initial" peak flow of 30-40 mmscfd from H2. How much are they anticipating that flow to drop off and how quickly?

Profit taking this morning by some that bought around 2p level to crystallise double money so not to be sniffed at. But I'd have held out for a multi-bagger rather than a double bagger !
This site seem not to have reset at midnight ?

My feeling is that the really significant sp movement probably won't happen until an offtake agreement is signed up. Approval of EIA should see a boost but it may well slide back afterwards unless a string of good newsflow follows approval.

Not strictly true deltalo, as H1 has so much fluid now that they moved to H2 plan. And as someone else previously highlighted, it's "our" !

All this talk of the new team's capabilities is irrelevant really, as even the best cyclist can't win the Tour de France on an average bike, so even the best team at the helm can't succeed with IOG if the resources prove to be flawed with too many issues as it appears after so many poor results.
New resources from new exploration may improve things but that depends on the funding lasting long enough for that to happen. For me it's feeling like an increasingly bleak outlook here and I've psychologically written off my large investment here as can't really see it getting anywhere near back to where it was.

Agree aligator, and the high pressure of the influx means nothing as Southwark also encountered that issue but well flow was pathetic ultimately and also full of water.

This is clearly outside of what they were referring to in their original schedule or else they would not have issued today's RNS, as IOG don't announce unless necessary, as any other LTH will tell you ! This delay is another third on top of original timing so very significant and far from easily solved based on previous IOG experience with similar issues.

No technical background left......they're long gone due to track record of failures that those people saw and ran !
But this RNS smacks of the Southwark A1 news with fluid losses in upper levels and slight delay incurred to resolve, but that was never resolved. So not a good omen for H2.

It's a shared venture, so they don't just whack 65m in IOG account you know !! IOG have to pay half of each cost as it progresses and they meet the other half of each cost, within the agreed total contribution.

CM - fine, but takeover hardly counts as ally and more in the field of competition.....but I'd be absolutely fine with it at the right price ! And the option of cheaper recycled lithium is surely not advantageous if virgin is more expensive ? Though I do agree that demand will devour both supply options in current market conditions.
Anyway, it's all blue sky thinking until we get approval by end of May.

So are CALB and Glencore going to be competition or allies ? I can't see Chinese CALB using SAV's lithium and will import raw material from China as they like to keep things Chinese, and Glencore recycling will surely hit market for new lithium supply, so not good news. SAV really need to move fast as possible or opportunities are going to disappear to others that are ahead.

full of water that previous post should have said

Erm, Southwark is written off as a waste of time, effort and money especially. Its full of and a gas flow like a fart so not at all likely anything will be done with it.

A simple email enquiry to them might give you most of the answers ?

I just hope the APA don't decide to pause the 50 day period due to this pathetic legal action....surely they wouldn't or can't?!

It's beginning to feel like the tide is turning against EV's as the long term future, but surely things have gone do far down that track that EV's are here for a couple of decades at least as the only viable mass-production alternative to ICE ? Sure hydrogen may run alongside and eco-fuels with 0% carbon outputs, etc., but EV's and lithium batteries surely the main option up to 2040 or so? News yesterday mentioned serious doubts about safety of EV's in even minor crashes dud to battery damage easily caused and risk of serious fires, plus write-offs if battery is damaged at all due to lack of engineers with knowledge to remove safely and replace or repair, so costs too high for consumers and insurance industry to be commercial en masse long term. All very thought provoking and concerning.

I hear you, but as they worked with SAV on the EIA then it would be awkward, so using public objections might be easier?

I agree Bonkers, but it's not SAV's decision but the APA, so the question is why they have unilaterally decided this when the procedure previously seemed set in policy. I just hope there's no hidden agenda behind this and APA know that currently there is not enough public objection to prevent approval so are open to enabling more to come through? Sounds far-fetched I know but such things do happen and I feel some explanation should be given by APA as to why they have felt this step is needed.

RNS now out and it's actually extended 15 days to 19th April !

IB - where did you see about an extension ? If this is correct then it's outrageous as it seems geared against SAV getting EIA approval. 10 days is plenty to raise an objection so extension not necessary at all. Why have protocols in place if they can just be twisted and tweaked like this? Pathetic system.