|"You forget it's Government policy for onshore gas to be used for domestic purposes" Not forgotten, and while it might remain "government policy," since that song was sung, Dodsal's Ruvu basin 2.17 tcf has been discovered and while not too much might be known about it, as TPDC certainly count it in as gas discovered, so, I guess, should we. Net result of Orca+M&P+Dodsal is that the Tanzanians have gas coming out of their ears before counting Ruvuma.
As it is, my favoured bee in the bonnet for any large scale Ruvuma discoveries remains GTL (in which Shell are also kings) given that it would tick so many economic boxes for Tanzania as well as providing large scale employment opportunities in the plant's construction. Given that TPDC hold a Lindi LNG earmarked site of 2,072 ha with an adjacent 17,000 ha being allocated for an industrial park, that is where a GTL plant might be sited.|
|They were effectively bailed out by Solo Oil before any of that. If Solo's investor base had any sort of credibility, they'd have had Ritson's head for signing up to the Kiliwani purchase deal in return for more and more dilution. The repayment rate for an AIM minnow that is heavily exploration focused is insane.
Neil said in the interview with JB that Solo had helped Aminex. Yeah, that's pretty damn clear to see. Terrible deal for solo shareholders that one, but thats just one in a long list with reef resources, pan minerals etc etc. Solo as a partner, have zero credibility in my eyes.|
|It's been quite a tough economic background in the sector for everyone and they did eventually raise significant funding through an investor.
I guess we'll see how it all pans out,and it's really not been panning for a long time, but the toughest times are when you plant the seeds of big money.|
|Rampers on LSE goonsville on the SOLO and AEX board failing to convince punters to get involved here. And who can blame them.
3 years of trying to get a farmout, supposedly for a project with 60% chance of success... Even when Aminex were crippled from a financial perspective, they couldn't get a farmout.
Great project right.... Where are the cupboard skeletons because I wouldn't be surprised if there are some.|
|You forget it's Government policy for onshore gas to be used for domestic purposes|
|Reading through the study, greyingsurfer, cost and flexibility are two central criteria with FLNG suiting inshore rather more than deepwater and if you look at the map of southern Tanzania you will see that the Mtwara coastline benefits from a number of bays. A c35km pipeline from Ruvuma PSA gas fields to the coast would be relatively easy and cheap.
Yeah, the essence of FLNG is to build elsewhere, predominantly Far East, and sail in to the gas field be it Australia or Africa. In an international gas market of low prices and buyer aversion to long term fixed high price LNG contracts, cost and flexibility would now seem to be kings which is why I am suggesting that AEX's gas economics and geography might well be highly attractive.
One other factor occurs to me as well. As the study makes clear while FLNG scores highly against onshore LNG in respect of capital cost, it does carry higher operating costs. However,as there appears to be a variety of vessel designs to suit particular purposes, what might defray those operating costs in this case, would be for the gas processing to be done onshore with the vessel then used just for liquefaction and loading.
What I am most definitely not suggesting is that any Ruvuma FLNG is short term, it ain't, but then nowt in this industry is. However, I do come back to my original contention that 2+ TCF of ultra low cost, near coast gas will largely determine its own market, which may very well not be domestic power generation.
The giant hurdle for now, though, is for AEX to prove or disprove Senergy and ISIS's 5+ TCF of Ruvuma PSA gas.|
|Interesting, WB - but has anyone ever used FLNG for onshore gas?
I can see there might be some possible advantages - you could build elsewhere and float in - but if you are already onshore you would need to build a pipeline offshore to the FNLG. Presumably there might be a halfway house where you build a modular LNG plant on barges and float them to a sheltered inshore site?|
|Or maybe their new investors could open doors for them?|
|While I continue to be highly sceptical on domestic Tanzania gas and power demand in relation to existing and projected supply other than in the long, long term, as I have posted before successful drills in the prospective 5+ TCF Ruvuma PSA will largely determine its own market given a) the comparatively very low cost of extraction and b) the proximity to the Mwtara and Lindi coasts.
The two prospective markets I have suggested in the past are a GTL plant and FLNG and herewith a November 2016 study of FLNG
Some of it is predictably technical but overall it is pretty readable and illuminating with E Africa getting several mentions and p29 providing a clue as to why Ophir and Shell might currently be engaged on drilling two wells on Block 4. Interestingly too, Ophir's Fortuna is listed as one of the current projects utilising a highly flexible form of finance "FLNG units can be leased or contracted on a tolling basis improving cash flow for the energy company e.g. Ophir Fortuna and not carrying the asset on the balance sheet."
An E African benefit of FLNG is summarised on p12 "However looking at the possible East Africa developments and the likely high cost of onshore construction due the remote location (ca. $1600/tpa41 , 42 ) and also the difficult decision making
processes it is likely that FLNG would offer both a cheaper and quicker solution than onshore – for either inshore or offshore applications. This is demonstrated by ENI’s decision to look at a FLNG solution for Coral South43 where it is considering two FLNG vessels to operate as an early production system ahead of the onshore plants."
However, one of the listed weaknesses for FLNG is directly Tanzanian related given the degree of political capital the government has invested in the Lindi LNG project regardless of its flying in the face of market reality "Low local content is another potential drawback as construction is almost exclusively out of country.
Many developing countries view LNG projects as a major opportunity for local employment, with thousands of people employed during construction of an onshore plant. FLNG limits local employment opportunities to the operational phase which will not meet the required expectations of many developing or developed countries which promote the use of their in-country labour resources e.g.Brazil, Indonesia and Nigeria."
Please note that I am not suggesting that farting little AEX could ever itself be involved with FLNG (or GTL) but, for said reasons of economics and geography, farting little AEX could, with drilling success, quite realistically become a target for a much bigger player with all the requisite resources.|
|No surprise that a final decision on N-3 will be made after N-2. Clearly the assumption is the probability is high - or they wouldn't have done the civils, though the seasonal issues also weigh the decision on those.
If the N-2 results indicate a significant difference to the current model it would be madness to plough on regardless - they would have to rethink. There's also the possibility, of course, as with any drill of technical failure - in which case getting N-2 redrilled could be more of a priority.
|yes, i should say you're right ngms, but at the same time as N-2 also has multiple targets, we really don't know what N-2 is going to reveal until drilled and which might have a bearing on the N-3 well planning.|
|There would be no point drilling Ntorya-3 is the next drill fails|
|Enlarge for Ntorya drillspots
|"warbaby435 Dec '16 - 12:02 - 58903 of 58903 0 0
Strange that Ritson should use the word "might" for an N-3 drill and should then posit 3D seismic given that AEX flatly say "Additionally, the Company has now completed all necessary civil works for the subsequent Ntorya-3 wellsite.""
Yes, but Aminex also say:
"Ntorya-3, which will be located approximately 5 kilometers from the Ntorya-1 discovery well, is expected to be drilled following Ntorya-2 but the programme may vary depending on the results at Ntorya-2."
It seems to be the same hymn sheet to me!|
|OK, on replaying the Ritson audio a few more times, am I interpreting this correctly that because of ground conditions deteriorating during the rainy season (October-April, according to Wiki) cash has been spent on an N-3 pad which might not get used if they choose to follow N-2 results with 3D seismic which might then indicate a more advantageous site for N-3?
Seems a bit strange for two cash-strapped companies and in a conversation with Marben following the 2012 AGM, Rego did cast doubt on the practicability of 3D seismic due to the topography - rolling hills and small farms.|
|i think what Ritson is also saying that N-3 or (the greater Ntorya) would not be fully developed without 3-D, but we have known that the way forward with N-3 all depends on the results of N-2.|
|Strange that Ritson should use the word "might" for an N-3 drill and should then posit 3D seismic given that AEX flatly say "Additionally, the Company has now completed all necessary civil works for the subsequent Ntorya-3 wellsite."
Did someone forget to distribute the hymn sheet?|
|They just cannot say it as it is still
No wonder Jay B looked hot under the collar on Proactive.|
|Vike1, we think Aminex has stopped publishing the IMS's which is no longer mandatory|
|It would be nice if AEX communicated the information rather than shareholders having to get it from partners.|
|thanks to Vike1
3D seismic, for N-3 ?
|in the last interview ( Nov 11) with JB and NR, JB stated that KN production was at between 15-20 mmcfd. 5.45 minutes in
|Shame they are being coy about what KN-1 production is running at.
Good news is they appear to be getting paid, but it would be good to know for how much gas.
Less good news is the delay in commercial production agreement. Most likely ngms is right that TPDC don't want to commit to 25-30 till demand is firmer, and quite likely AEX don't want to commit to a lower figure now and would rather wait till a higher figure can be agreed. In the meantime they are getting paid for what is produced - and cash does appear to be flowing - but I'd guess at less than 20-25 on average or they would have been telling us.
|I think it wouldn't go up after this RNS as they didn't share income they are getting from N-1Secondly people will wait for N-2 results now as it most likely they start drilling on N-3 in mid January and will use second rig (optional)|