Tomco Energy Share Discussion Threads

[rmart] 07/4/2021 08:01

well yes i suppose that could be right, they paid out in excess of $300,000 for the leases.

[goulding1215] 07/4/2021 07:48

Could be that Valkor had the cash, and could lease it out to Greenfield when they start work on the Greenfield project. Pure conjecture on my part. However, I believe that any positive action by Valkor, and by connection, Stephen Byle, to be positive for TOM’s long-term future as a JV partner in Greenfield. Aimho

[rmart] 07/4/2021 07:33

I agree it is strange that the jv did not secure those leases.

[stuart little] 07/4/2021 07:26

So Valkor tentatively switch on the POSP in January, producing a small amount of oil. We now know they were ultra cautious as they basically reconfigured the whole plant! Then go out and secure a massive area of surrounding oil sands leases. Anybody looking for a decent clue as to the chances of success at the POSP.....and for greenfield?

[vauch] 07/4/2021 07:15

Sorry for not replying damac had gone to bed.

[vauch] 07/4/2021 07:12

I also find it strange that Greenfield did no do the purchase, I still think we are a target for Valkor as we already have the listing and a massive losses write-down on future profits. I really can se a RTO.
Also to add to it Valkor are after the RF technology

[damac] 06/4/2021 22:44

Yeah, that’s what I thought Busa.

To me this is a big indicator that things will be moving forward and that the oil produced from the Tar Sands II lease currently being looked at by Greenfield is already of such a quality that has given Valkor the confidence to go and secure all these additional leases in the general area of Tar Sands II.

[busamitch] 06/4/2021 22:37

T4S, R21E immediately adjacent. And others south towards the POSP. Spooky, eh?

[goulding1215] 06/4/2021 22:32

LOL! I had a smile at ‘some bunch called Red Leaf’. They were TOM’S saviours 6-8 years ago!

Sounds like things are hitting with Valkor preparing for Greenfield production. At last dare I say? Well, I think the latest ‘saviour’; in the shape of Valkor/Steven Boyle, look like the best bet so far. Aimho

[damac] 06/4/2021 22:29

Busa, would I be right in saying that these leases taken on by Valkor are adjacent to the Tar Sands II lease?

[damac] 06/4/2021 22:19

Thanks Busa. Actually just went and registered on LSE to look, wish I hadn’t lol. Don’t know how anyone can put up with the layout of the boards over there. Don’t think I’ll be back lol.

[busamitch] 06/4/2021 22:07

I thought for a second they'd bought the Red Leaf lease. That would be funny...

The Valkor lease is viewable here:



Scroll the map to Vernal and T4S R20E etc are about 5 miles west (you may have to enable the layer in ArcGIS).

[rmart] 06/4/2021 21:48

Some bunch called red leaf ha ha, that’s funny!

[busamitch] 06/4/2021 21:42

There's a link to a PDF here, Valkor are listed after some bunch called Red Leaf.



Or follow instructions from LSE:

PetroMod

Valkor has leased just over 60 square kms of oil sands land in Utah. That’s bigger than the size of Manhattan!

Type Valkor in the customer search field and download the PDF.

[damac] 06/4/2021 21:37

Vauch,

What land is that relating too? I’m not on LSE.

[vauch] 06/4/2021 21:27

From LSE Tom thread

Very interesting indeed. But not purchased by Greenfield JV?

per link this land grab by valkor was back in January per that link -Steven Byle must have known then that the technology works - you don’t spend $650K as a punt - so that means they plan either develop themselves - unlikely or more likely grant sub licenses to others at a huge premium - when the Petroteq technology is confirmed as commercial all the surrounding Utah acreage value rockets. Then valkor get the engineering plant installation etc win win

[lopodop] 06/4/2021 19:42

The Crosstrail report doesn't offer a lot of room for slippage in terms of cost overruns and viability - but one thing at a time.

[damac] 06/4/2021 19:15

For clarity, all costs associated with mining and transporting ore to the plant will be paid via a contract with a mining company and as such there will be no requirement to purchase specialist equipment for these tasks. This should also mean that maintenance & repair costs associated to the equipment would be borne by the contractor and replacement equipment provided in the event of breakdown.





"The Report estimates that the capital cost of the 10,000 bopd Plant will be approximately US$185 million, or US$18,500 per nameplate bopd. The capital cost is inclusive of all project management and engineering, all equipment and systems, site construction, start-up, and commissioning sufficient to have a fully operational oil sands plant capable of processing oil sands ore into high grade bitumen product. The Report assumes that for this design, contract mining will be used to provide ore to the Plant and the capital costs do not include the cost of land, leases and/or mining equipment."

[jaynealex] 06/4/2021 19:12

That's going to leave a big hole

Will we then go into landfill charging by the lorry load !!

[lopodop] 06/4/2021 18:44

If sand is sold, what happens re cavity.

Any idea of distance between Greenfield site and existing plant.

You have previously questioned the logistics - well done - now what is the way forward.

[wilson2] 06/4/2021 18:09

To haul 10.000 ton they need 20 of them, so that's about £100 million

[wilson2] 06/4/2021 18:03

The cost of a large excavator and 1 huge dump truck is about £12 million

[lopodop] 06/4/2021 17:57

? Sell the sand after process. But moving 10,000 tons is a logistical issue.

[hotfinance14] 06/4/2021 17:53

Thoese buckets are huge. Three loads fills that in about 30 seconds.

[stuart little] 06/4/2021 17:21

Yes, I understand that to be part of the plan.