Tomco Energy Share Discussion Threads

[damac] 01/9/2021 14:35

Vauch,

This is the latest Inspection Report file I can find on it, dated 13/05/20

[stuart little] 01/9/2021 14:28

We have no idea of their extraction costs, debts, actual process etc. The prevailing oil price through 2015-2017 (average around $40) saw off many junior oil companies and forced many projects to be shelved. What we do know is the CORT process is profitable above $20 plus the potential sand bonus. Tomco has a clean balance sheet and is carrying no debt going into the funding stage.

[lopodop] 01/9/2021 14:26

UKOG could absorb TOM on or after 1st October for a limited paper exercise. Alan Howard may already have TOM in his sight - certainly savings at Director level and in corporate costs. Different perspective may help salvage parts of TOM.

[fenners66] 01/9/2021 14:13

"Bio-solvent without the need for tailings ponds."

Whilst I have no idea if CORT is radically different , its certainly sounds similar.

Now how does a financier read that ?

[fenners66] 01/9/2021 14:12

So what happened to US Oil Sands?

Sorry if everyone else has already discussed this , I'm just reading it for the first time.

US Oil Sands Inc. : Announces Appointment of Receiver
09/15/2017 | 12:49am BST

CALGARY, ALBERTA--(Marketwired - Sep 14, 2017) - US Oil Sands Inc. ("US Oil Sands" or the "Company") (TSX VENTURE:USO), an innovator of oil extraction technologies, announces that the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta has granted the application of the Company's lender, ACMO S.à R.L., to appoint FTI Consulting Canada Inc. (the "Receiver") as receiver and manager over the assets, undertakings and property of US Oil Sands. The Receiver is charged with managing the day-to-day affairs of the Company during the period of its appointment and should be contacted with respect to any questions concerning the assets and liabilities of US Oil Sands.

ABOUT US OIL SANDS INC.

US Oil Sands is engaged in the exploration and development of oil sands properties and, through its wholly owned United States subsidiary US Oil Sands (Utah) Inc., has a 100% interest in bitumen leases covering 32,005 acres of land in Utah's Uinta Basin. The Company has developed a proprietary extraction process which uses a bio-solvent to extract bitumen from oil sands without the need for tailings ponds.

[fenners66] 01/9/2021 14:07

Thanks for the links damac

That site has a list of failed Utah projects despite seemingly hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at it.

Since the 1970's through to 2016+

I guess everyone of those projects (it says) including oil majors would have said this time its different.

That history should be researched by any lender as its their $110m+ at risk.

Also picked up US Oil Sands Inc seems to be included above as another failure.

Looked that up on Bloomburg but the Bloomburg website link for the company took me to 2020 Resources.com

However there I read...

"Extraction Innovation


2020 Resources expects to develop its properties by using a unique and environmentally friendly extraction process. This one-of-a-kind, patented approach to bitumen recovery will allow the Company to achieve best-in-class environmental results along virtually any metric. The process utilizes a renewable and biodegradable solvent that efficiently and effectively separates the bitumen enabling the Company to eliminate intensive water use, Immediately reclaim mined areas & drastically reduce surface disturbances. This technology is also expected to achieve top tier performance on water conservation and GHG emissions while significantly reducing the capital cost of projects when compared to similar developments. "

That sounds familiar.....

[vauch] 01/9/2021 13:43

Damac, I hope the site was cleaned up properly and we are not stuck with a dirty site

[damac] 01/9/2021 13:09

Fenners,

Companies have been trying to develop a sustainable extraction technology for the resources on what is known as Tar Sands II since 1992.

Crown Asphalt spent 20 years there before going bankrupt in 2012. Tar Sands II took on the site in 2014 and were forced by DOGM to clean the site up after Crown Asphalts hasty exit.






Basically the technology being developed at the time by Crown Asphalt and then Tar Sands Holdings were not up to much and not very environmentally friendly. It is only now with Petroteq's CORT technology, that it looks like the site can be adequately developed.

[goulding1215] 01/9/2021 13:03

Thank you, as I thought.

I hope you have time for your day job!

[damac] 01/9/2021 12:48

goulding,

Subject to satisfactory due diligence and the necessary funding being secured.....we would only at that point be sharing pole position with Petroteq.

Petroteq would have a plant (albeit somewhat dilapidated) but no resource to process on their current site.

Greenfield would have no plant (until it is built) but a site containing a vast amount of suitable resource.

Assuming Petroteq's situation remained the same, Greenfield would only be in pole position when they have a plant up and running.

[fenners66] 01/9/2021 12:44

damac thanks again for a comprehensive reply

I decided to try and find the answer to my own question above , who are Tar Sands II.

Jam Industrial had ownership of Asphalt Ridge and an article on their website tells us a bit

"The facility is currently owned by Tar Sands Holdings II, LLC (TSHII). JAM Industrial, Inc. is a member of TSHII. The facility is not currently in operation, and is for sale. For purchase inquiries, please contact us at [e-mail] and we will pass along your information."

That article was dated July 8th 2016.

So arguably the land with its failed plant in situ and possible remediation and maintenance work to do has been up for sale for 5 years.

I understand the idea that the new plant worked "may" change the equation - but even then as far as I can see there is no RNS saying 500 bpd was achieved.

If no one bought the land in 5 years I still question the 90 day deadline (now extended).

IF the purchase does not go ahead , then the $200 now $300k has been money for literally nothing. i.e. the land has been leveraged to obtain a return for a few hours in a lawyers office drafting the wording.

Had there been a list of buyers queuing up to buy it then it makes sense , but 5 years without any interest and then suddenly there is the imperative ?

Maybe Tar Sand II just saw an opportunity and rushed them into it .

[shaunx] 01/9/2021 12:29

After not getting thrown out of Greenfield like you suggested would be the case, your suggesting the Nomad will now hop it? Lol

[damac] 01/9/2021 12:18

Fenners,

Petroteq, being the principal owners of most of the IP relating to the CORT technology (Greenfield being the owners of additional associated IP that was developed by them during their time upgrading POSP) will always be a competitor to Greenfield or whoever else comes along for as long as Petroteq are in existence, that has always been known and accepted. The majority of mining leases in the Uintah Basin share boundaries with other such leases so yes it is not inconceivable that for example Greenfield could be operating a plant on one lease and Petroteq operating a plant on an adjacent lease.



Re why pay $200k non refundable in the first place....


To put it simply, because this must have been the terms that the seller is offering. The Conditional Site Purchase Arrangement (RNS - 09/06/21) says....

"Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Greenfield has paid a non-refundable deposit of US$200,000 to secure a 90 day period to undertake due diligence and an exclusive option for up to 120 days to acquire an initial 10% of the Membership Interests."

So on prudently asking the seller for terms on a 90 day period where they can conduct due diligence but have the right to walk away if due diligence doesn't come up to scratch...and...the exclusivity to purchase the initial 10% within 120 days, the seller would have came back and said i'm prepared to allow that but it will cost you $200k non refundable. As per today's announcement, they have obviously asked the seller to renegotiate those terms because (it looks like) due diligence has not been completed, and the seller has came back and said, okay but this is going to cost you another $100k non refundable. It really is nothing more than this.


You mention 'where is the pressure from another buyer?', there doesn't appear to be any and thankfully that is the case because if there was then the seller would be even more uncompromising. I pointed out Petroteq to you as another potential buyer of such land but this was only in respect to them having the relevant technology to process the resource. As I said in my other post to goulding, Petroteq are severely hampered just now as they can't operate to the viable levels they need to on their current site and have no funds and large debts.


Your comment about a similar FEED study now being required is stretching it a bit. Today's RNS says that Stantec are now producing a Mining Plan and Netherland Sewell are producing a Site Reserves Report. It also says that this is being done in parallel to securing the funds, which suggests that these two specific items of due diligence (not an entirely new FEED study) are at the request of a third party(s) i.e. potential lenders. Let me ask you this, if you were a potential lender, do you not think that your underwriting department would require satisfying that the resources were there as being claimed and that a suitable plan was in place for recovery of said resources? It stands to reason that a potential lender has requested that these plans/reports are conducted by an organisation of their own choice. Kahuna were only responsible for the 3rd party verification of the upgraded plant, it was Crosstrails (a subsidiary of Valkor) that compiled the FEED study. Having not seen the contents of the FEED study we can only assume that potential lenders are seeking further reassurance of a couple of aspects.

[thesageofsaint] 01/9/2021 12:14

He is an absolute lost cause. Not even an RNS that states the following could shift his slovenly brain: "It is with deep regret that this morning we requested the LSE to suspend dealing in TOM equity from 0800 this morning. Whilst we have applied best endeavour, we have been unable to acquire the necessary funding to support our near term cash requirements, and as a result we will now be seeking administration services and related wind up petition"Goulding would respond: "looks like we are preparing ourselves for a takeover. What do you think Damac, is it PQE or Shell, either way we should see a minimum of 3p when they are out of suspension"Total moron!

[the diddymen] 01/9/2021 11:48

Mixi this is very reserved ramping for you:

"Great reply Damac thank you. Would I be correct in saying that, to the informed, TOM is in pole position, to produce oil from tar sands, awaiting due diligence?"

Just to point out that the elephants (note plural) in the room are: the modest requirement of $110m of funding, a one man team to deliver the project, and an empty biscuit tin.

Just for once get your mind around the enormity of the project and 30 days for a one man band to deliver.

[goulding1215] 01/9/2021 11:10

Great reply Damac thank you. Would I be correct in saying that, to the informed, TOM is in pole position, to produce commercial oil from tar sands, awaiting due diligence?

[thesageofsaint] 01/9/2021 11:04

You are nearly getting there but just pulling back from the conclusion that your thoughts are aiming you at. PQ and Valkor are indeed competitors for TOM. They own the IP and technical experience and competence. Valkor walked away because of this compromise and hence why Tom needs to find a new partner and very quickly. I do not know if PQ has shown interest in this land or not, but Tom is painfully aware that it would be an absolute disaster that could leave it high and dry if this land was to fall into the ownership of its erstwhile partners and now competitors. Hence the need to pay yet more cash for a non-refundable deposit in the hope they can cobble together enough of a story to get a placing away. The narrative is literally in tatters but what else can they do but plod on even further into the dark tunnel.

[fenners66] 01/9/2021 10:51

Thanks Damac for raising Petrotech as a potential buyer of the land.
But that suggests that despite Greenfield buying the license to use the tech , they then will be in direct competition with Petrotech to actually use it?

That could spoil the relationship.

Imagine buying a franchise from McDonalds and then they set up next door , or buy your land site out from under you ?


So they have added another $100k non-refundable to the deposit , my earlier question about why the $200k had to be paid in the first place is even more relevant.

I questioned the imposition of an arbitrary deadline to buy the 10%, now we find out that "deadline" can be moved for another $100k.

Surely if there was other interest in buying the land , the deadline passes and is enforced, with a statement , you had your chance you paid $200k , you said the due diligence would all be done , so long we are selling to another party.

But instead , we have the friendly ok cross this palm with another $100k and the 90 day (3 months) deadline can be extended.

Does not look a lot like there is massive pressure from another buyer there.

Who are TSHII , Tar Sands Holdings LLC ?
What happens if the "due diligence" cannot be completed before Oct 1st "there can be no certainty that the due diligence exercise will ultimately be concluded" ?

Add another month for another $100k?
Does that then put them in so deep that they have to keep adding in case they can arrange the finance?

They have a FEED study done by Kahunas or whoever , but now they need to do similar again with Stantec Inc, what was wrong with the Kahunas work?

It could be , like all the RNS's I have seen , just delay.
Nothing seems to happen on time as planned, there are always delays.

But my question of why the pressure to pay a non-refundable option fee, for an option that can be extended (ad infinitum?) still stands.

[lopodop] 01/9/2021 10:50

TD
Quite possible the NOMAD will walk away given the precarious situation. It may doubt TOM's technical solvency position and the rationale for even a limited placing which is at best dubious. GROAT the chairman is senior independent director iN Baronsmead Group so if TOM fails this could blackball his position and credibility there.
Groat has allowed himself to be jammed into a corner and come the AGM watch the sweat beads drop on to the floor. He took a big gamble on Potter and did not look closely enough at REFORM. At least he's been paid for this debacle.

[damac] 01/9/2021 10:38

goulding,

Yes, that is how it looks with Petroteq.

They have mentioned several times now in the recently documented discussions with DOGM that they are struggling to find decent quantities of suitable resource to process on their current site.

As far as I'm aware, Petroteq do not have another lease (with infrastructure and permits etc. in place) where they can readily build another plant and process ore. They cannot continue on their current site on a viable basis. They will have to set up shop elsewhere but they are currently hampered with having no funds and large debts, they really need the alleged takeover to happen for them to survive.

[the diddymen] 01/9/2021 10:32

SoS, the problem is that unless there is a plan with a reasonable chance even a placing is in jeopardy. My reading is that JP would like to have got the placing away before now and all that he has delivered today is a stay of execution today. 30 days is hardly the timescales that you want to be working to at this stage.

Odds may be on for the desire to place more shares, but even the NOMAD will be twitching at this one.

Everyone has a trump card somewhere and Directors investing would be one of those cards!

[ajj2003] 01/9/2021 10:07

Morning Goulding, cannot see how Petroteq could have another site fully surveyed and ready to move forward at this time. All their much limited resources were focussed on helping prove the tech at the original site due to cash constraints. Looks very much as if we are the only show in town for the foreseeable so if you want a piece of the action, then Tomco is the only place to be ;)

[thesageofsaint] 01/9/2021 09:55

Morning. More fun on the Tom BB today. It is falling apart in front of their eyes but the derangement runs so deep and so collectively that they just heap more on to the pile of fictional nonsense. The story has got so out of control that they are now struggling to contain the deception that somehow TOM will be an oil producer after they gain access to over $100m of funding. It is so fanciful that it should be seen as nonsense, but the bigger the lie the more it can deceive. What we do know is, and this is inexorable, there will either be a placing or it will be wound up. I back a placing, the gravy train feeds too many.

[lopodop] 01/9/2021 09:54

TD
Groat and Potter must be hoping the story will take them past AGM and then they can decide how to release the announcement on October 1st. NOMAD must also be somewhat concerned about its precarious position here and how long TOM can spend shareholders' resources in this way. $300,000 at risk or lost. The Board could be personally liable for this if it is shown they acted in a wreckless fashion. This is extremely serious. Had they put their own money on the table, Groat and Co would NOT have taken this further risk. They are behaving as a bunch of greedy gamblers for their own self interests.

[goulding1215] 01/9/2021 09:40

Good point freedom. They could be thinking nothing for a month, so, I can just sit and hold.who knows.