Tomco Energy Share Discussion Threads

[wilson2] 29/11/2021 17:16

Rmart been on the Sherry already, he's consistent I'll give him that

[rugrat2] 29/11/2021 17:14

They will be ML53832 (960 ac)which surrounds tract D, Ml53831 (640ac) immediately to the west and ML 53805 (1920ac) in two blocks south and southwest. All the other Valkor lease area is on one agreement ML54066. This includes the lease areas to the north and east (about 2500 ac at a guess)

If I have time later I'll update my map to the new position as I see it

[goulding1215] 29/11/2021 17:12

Valkor’ S tentacles spreading all over the Uinita Basin. Good partner to have.

[rmart] 29/11/2021 17:07

Looks like Valkor like this in situ method for the deeper oil sands. Looks good for Tomco getting more involved in that alongside the near surface mining for the 5,000 bopd plant.

[damac] 29/11/2021 16:58

Do we know for sure which 3 leases Valkor are swapping with Petroteq in the NW of the ridge, they currently have many around that area?

I'll wait until we see confirmation of where the 3 leases are before changing that graphic.

[the diddymen] 29/11/2021 15:34

W2 it was 10 days before drilling according to the deluded BB. This Friday is the due day. Its easy.

[damac] 29/11/2021 15:27

Just to confirm something though Rugrat2, Greenfield are not buying the land off Tar Sands II, they are buying Tar Sands Holdings II LLC outright, the land is an asset of the company being bought.

[damac] 29/11/2021 13:08

Rugrat2

Thanks for pointing out my error.

This has stemmed from the Utah Trustlands interactive map showing no oil sand leases on the areas you have now correctly identified as the Tar Sands II assets.



I will amend the graphic and ask rmart to swap it out in the header to remove the confusion.

[rugrat2] 29/11/2021 13:02

I should have put in a link to the doc with the property details specified in my previous post. I can't quickly find the doc that I got the screen print from, but here is another from one of the bankruptcy documents referring to previous ownership in 2012.



The land holdings are specified in slides 38 and 39 of:

hxxps://fs.ogm.utah.gov/FILES/MINERALS/PERMITS/047/M0470032/2012/Incoming/02142012.pdf

[wilson2] 29/11/2021 11:56

-1 to -12 December, no way they'll be drilling

[fenners66] 29/11/2021 11:38

Look at the map on the other thread , the 121 road - just outside Vernal....

try again

[hotfinance14] 29/11/2021 11:38

I wonder John eats at the Sloppy Pig.

[fenners66] 29/11/2021 11:03

Vernal Utah

[goulding1215] 29/11/2021 10:55

Looks like one for you Damac!

[freedom97] 29/11/2021 10:49

You must be looking at wrong area. As this link shows during the day temperature stays above zero:

[rugrat2] 29/11/2021 09:48

I haven’t posted for nearly two years following the last Turboshale test and the news of the MOU with Valkor – just put my small holding in the bottom draw until things got moving. The thing that stirred me into doing some research again was the news of imminent activity, and the in-situ wells in particular.

I looked for the easy way in – drill permits. Nothing doing – they aren’t on the Utah Oil and Gas website either because of system delays or because they are on mineral leases rather than oil. And the Minerals site has a tab for a permit database where they might conceivably be – “coming soon”. So back to basics.

I put a kml of the SITLA leases from their website onto GoogleEarth and that confirmed my feeling that the line written above the lease map in the header on this thread is incorrect. The plant site is east of the Land Enterprises and New Day Energy leases and anyway we know that Greenfield are buying the land off of Tar Sands Holdings 11 ie. it is private land and cannot be the ML51869 SITLA lease.
It took a lot of searching through likely permit docs in the Tar Sands Holdngs 11 permit files:

hxxps://ogm.utah.gov/minerals/MineralsPDO/angularmineralsfilesbypermit.php?M0470032

hxxps://ogm.utah.gov/minerals/MineralsPDO/angularmineralsfilesbypermit.php?M0470022

Eventually I came across two docs linked to previous owners listing the land holdings totalling the 760 acres quoted by TOM. The land is in two distinct tracts named A and D. The plant lies on tract A, east of the ridge. The interesting bit is 320 acres (remember the figure from the last RNS?) which lies about 1.5 miles NW, the other side of the ridge – tract D. This is in a geologically separate area referred to in the literature as NW Asphalt Ridge – separated by a major fault from the ridge proper. A 3000ft exposure of Duquesne oil sands in tract D has been surface worked for years and was I suspect the source of sand for the Petroteq plant evaluation.





You will see from the GoogleEarth image that tract D is surrounded by SITLA acreage leased by Valkor – so as some suspected they are the third party funding our wells into the Rim Rock oil sands.

SOHIO (Standard Oil) were early leaseholders in the area and did some work in Tract D on in-situ heating to mobilise the oil, and drilled an exploratory well (D-4)close by in the SE of the surrounding Valkor lease.

The United States Department of Energy's Laramie Energy Technology Center (LETC) carried out work between 1971 and 1982 on a 26 acre site to understand how to extract in situ oil from these sands, and as far as I can make out it was done on that surrounding Valkor lease, but maybe on tract D itself.
hxxps://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5415842

The work included close spaced 2D seismic and boreholes, and explored steam injection techniques, with separate injection and producer wells. The seismic showed a lot of faulting which resulted in some inefficient steam injection, with pressure being lost along the fault lines. This is probably why Greenfield/Valkor are looking at a cyclic system of injection where a single well alternately injects and then produces in it’s own zone (hopefully fault free!).

It probably will not be a straightforward ride, but the Rim Rock seems to have 50 ft or more of net pay in the tract D area and good porosities (circa 30%), so promises good results. I wonder if the Greenfield 5000bpd plant will be on Tract D, rather than replacing the existing plant on A as one might have assumed?

I could go on, but I won’t. Here are some useful references if interested:
hxxps://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/open_file_reports/ofr-551.pdf
hxxps://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/special_studies/SS-19.pdf
hxxps://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/special_studies/ss-50.pdf

And by the way , remember Turboshale and RF? – Pyrophase are talking about using RF on the New Day Energy lease.
hxxps://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/584929.pdf

[lopodop] 29/11/2021 08:03

VAUCH
Note word 'intended'- will drilling happen this year? Usual history for TOM is to run late!

[goulding1215] 29/11/2021 07:39

I see WTI back above $70 ($71 to be exact)

[goulding1215] 29/11/2021 07:36

Mashman, that is a good article. It mentions Tar Sands amongst the early losers. However, that reference will be alluding to the Canadian type dirty tar sands. Not the Utah tar sands, where sand will be off-setting any low prices for oil. However expect bonanza years for low-emission tar sands for Tomco off set by sand sales, which, of course, cause no emissions.aimho.

[vauch] 29/11/2021 07:14

Just to be sure people understand it is expected to occur in December as per RNS

Commenting, John Potter, CEO of TomCo, said : "We are delighted to have completed this purchase of an initial 10% stake in TSHII. The acquisition provides Greenfield with a base from which to accelerate its plans to pursue both the drilling of certain near term oil production wells and thereafter the acquisition of the balancing 90% of the Membership Interests and its first commercial scale plant, subject to funding. We expect the permitting process for the production wells to be completed in Q1 2022, following the drilling of three exploration wells intended to occur in December 2021.

[thrgef] 28/11/2021 22:34

OK, massive week coming with exploration drilling starting. Who would have predicted that 3 months ago.