Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I believe funding is on it's way and the oil?
Well, from what I know and contrary to what's been said on this board, often as you well know, there is evidence of oil. Boss is deriving lot's [sic] of oil from northern Tasmania in the tasmanite shale south of Latrobe. There is shown to be a bitumen seep in the NE at Launceston and Lonnavale in the south.
See #22096
Empire ever drilling and then making a lucky gold strike is about as close to being off topic as imaginable.
Sorry. Mere words.
That is, if I was authorized to drill in a virgin basin looking for oil and I just so happened to strike gold, well geez, I for one am keeping it! Less of course, any shares owed to others.
I'd say Malcolm agrees with me on this.
As well as counsel, the respectable Paul A. Batiste pc
I recommend that you check what the odds are for a winning bet on the roulette wheel (hint: much, much less than 50%).
Besides, even if they do roll the dice, as in roulette, there's a slightly less than 50% chance of winning.
TXO is probably wondering itself what it has got into. Some of its own shareholders are scratching their heads.
I should make a correction:
EL 14/2009 definitely does not include coal seam gas rights (explicitly stated in the EL terms and conditions). As it does not have coal rights either it is unclear in what sense the Permo-Triassic coal beds shown on the Bellevue drillhole section can be considered to be "targets" as they are labelled to be.
While the stockmarket has a mind of its own you couldn't count on a minnow stock that has no funding, no oil, and no real prospect of finding oil benefitting from Middle East turbulence. As things stand if EEGC were to unexpectedly shoot up to 10 or 20 cents I couldn't get out quickly enough. Anything less would hardly be worth my time.
In the meantime you could hire a row boat and enjoy the sunshine out on SF Bay.
EL 14/2009 does not have rights to coal seam gas (nor coal nor oil shale) so there go all the shallow "targets" shown on the Bellevue drill section. And GSLM doesn't have to go offshore to be all at sea.
The company is looking for oil, gas, Helium, Coal seem [sic] gas. There is a program under consideration to explore for oil off shore as well.
In 6.5 years EEGC/GSLM failed to complete one well and the time remaining to do so is fast running out.
No well in 6.5 years and now talk of 14 wells in 4 months. ROFL. That opinion coming from the company is worth about as much as Malcolm's letter of credit was.
The google books link does not correlate petroleum deposits with Tasmanite beds (as far as I can see - it's rather difficult to use). It concerns post-glacial transitions in a range of tectonic settings and basin types without reference to associated petroleum deposits - see the section Concluding Remarks.
Tasmanite is actually the name of a particular plant (algal) spore and it is not a rock type as such. Hence Tasmanite oil shale.
It's apparent you have very little understanding of petroleum geology and I am not inclined to spend much more of my time with you on the subject. I have no wish to go on any more of your wild goose chases.
And talk about funny, I find it very interesting that the same major sourcerock found through-out the rest of the world in proven oil finds are called tasmanites. A term the whole world uses:
You are very confused. The Tasmanite oil shale unit is within the Permo-Triassic Parmeeneer Supergroup to which the Gondwana petroleum system refers and it has nothing at all to do with the deeper, underlying Ordovician to Devonian Larapintine petroleum system. The Precambrian rocks are older and deeper still.
It is the Ordovician to Devonian sequence for which RPS Energy has estimated the prospective undiscovered resource. They have not computed any resource in the overlying Parmeener Supergroup because the seismic data was too poor there to elucidate any structural traps. There has been some speculation of a very broad and gentle anticline mirroring to some lesser degree the underlying Bellevue dome but it is not evident in the seismic.
So-called "target" horizons in the Parmeeneer are completely conceptual - coal seams could conceivably be prospective for coal seam gas but what the thin Tasmanite unit proper (if present) is supposed to be prospective for has never been explained. It is speculated to possibly represent a source for the release and migration of oil into overlying structural traps within the Parmeneer.
I see that the Amini mosaic Bellevue Anticline page includes a small Table showing Monte Carlo simulation for P10 P50 P90 in the Permo-Triassic but that refers only to inferred reservoir capacities and NOT to probabilities of actual oil discovery. The study must be highly conceptual since detailed structural traps are not known and the work is not considered by the later RPS Energy report.
The same Tasmanite shale of Latrobe runs directly under Bellvue. Presumably it's the same laurapatine, precambiam system where they extracted oil in the north.
I suggest you read the RPS Energy report paying close attention to the difference between the Gondwanaland and Larapintine petroleum systems.
How do you know what could possibly fuel Bellvue? For that matter, I believe according to hypotheticals a thin structure of the same Tasmanite shale as the retorted shale from Latrobe lies below Bellvue
You make that sound so compelling. As if paraphrasing a post from some other message board adds to your credibility.
Also, it appears you conviently overlook Empire's right to confidential propriatory information they spent over 50m developing that I don't believe MRT will be willing to disclose so easily.
One more time, the supposed hundreds of millions of barrels of oil awaiting discovery at Bellevue and Thunderbolt are much deeper than the Tasmanite oil shale and not sourced from it. It is a completely different petroleum system.
From another message board (with some amendments):-
If the Exploration Licence finally expires on 17 May - i.e. there is no renewal of it due to failure to have met the imposed work and expenditure conditions - the area then undergoes a 2 months moratorium period during which all the GSLM data is available for public inspection and evaluation at the MRT Library in Hobart. At the end of the moratorium new applications can be made over the counter at MRT for all or part of the ground formerly included within the EL.
The data is not available for said inspection before the EL expires so that a potentially interested new party would not necessarily be in a position to indicate to MRT before the expiry that it was interested in taking up the ground. In any case in the absence of such an indication being received by MRT it would still not be able to conclude there was no other possibly interested party so that GSLM might just as well be allowed to continue on with a renewal.
MRT would not make a decision on whether or not to renew the licence on the basis of there being or not being other potentially interested explorers.
Perhaps GSLM could make a completely new application and take its chances along with any other parties applying at the end of the moratorium period but it could face an uphill battle in view of its past underperforming record.
The other aspect to be considered is that even if no other party were to apply at the end of the moratorium period it could not be assumed that a new cashed-up party might not appear over the ridge in (say) 12 months time only to find GSLM in possession and effectively tying up the ground with its customary non-performance.
Offshore eastern Tasmania where GSLM/Empire has applied for exploration licences (all rejected) is an extension of the onshore Tasmania Basin which has nothing in common with the geologically younger Bass Strait fields. If good success were achieved with onshore drilling it would naturally be of interest to look further east out to sea but relevance at this time to GSLM hardly exists. Note that the area is presently open for tenements but it attracts no interest from the big boys who are exploring in the much more prospective offshore younger Basins to the west and south of Tasmania.
Good article, worth a read. They haven't heard of your breakthrough new theory though.
My assessment of things is this is going nowhere and between it being a very long shot project with incompetent, third rate management it never really stood much of a chance.
GSLM did actually drill some holes pre-Empire but they were not located with good seismic data and although they produced useful stratigraphic information they yielded little else of interest.
While a deep hole or two in the Central Plateau would be worth trying it should be kept in perspective that the odds of success are quite low, all the high-blown rhetoric and hoopla not withstanding. Dreams of future Bentleys and yachts would likely be brought back to earth with a thump.
That's an intriguing new theory. It more precisely locates the oil than the theory of a guy a while back (I could name him but iHub policy might not allow it) who said with there being oil in Antarctica and New Guinea there will be oil in Tasmania because it is midway between them.
It is spelled Shittim (a wood mentioned in the bible) and there were only trace amounts of C2-C6 hydrocarbons with some methane in fractures in contact metamorphosed basement sediments and dolerite i.e. an unlikely lithological and structural setting. The gas is apparently derived from some distance away by lateral dispersion through impervious rocks. The hole was drilled on Bruny Island which was excluded from SEL 13/1998 when it was reduced in size on being renewed and it is outside the present EL 14/2009
Bruny Island has something of folklore status in GSLM's oil exploration for its suspect/erroneous reports of oil occurrences there in Johnson's Well and at The Neck between north and south Bruny Island.
Here back on planet Earth we are nearly half way through the Tasmanian summer, there is still no funding for drilling (only an ominous silence on that front), obtaining a drilling rig at short notice would be problematic, and the exploration licence expires in a little over four months. Even if by some miracle Bellevue and Thunderbolt get to be drilled (we need not take the "target" of 14 wells seriously) the chance of them finding commercial oil/gas is less than the winning number on the roulette table.
But apart from that everything is rosy.
There are many on this board who are under no illusion that claims to be in possession of privileged Company information should be taken seriously. The recent failed prediction is a case in point. Spurious "intel" is of no use to anyone.
Thanks Jerseyfish, I wonder why though, how so many on this board seem to have trouble grasping that little snipits of information gleened from your posts are not, nor have they ever been ment to be investment gospel?
Maybe next week .... or the week following .... or the week after that ....
I expect a Press Release the first week of January that will bring smiles to the longs all the way to the bank.
That is the other case, the one in which Empire and Bendall are the plaintiffs.
In it is alleged/stated (four times) that there existed a joint venture relationship between Empire and Smart Win. Amazing stuff (major eye roll).
The point you are trying to make escapes me. Perhaps if you were to make it plainly it would be understandable and a relevant response would be possible ....
I would welcome your providing a link to what has been decided and so be made current.
The outcome of a court case in which EEGC could be awarded enormous damages (unlikely as that is) is to look forward. The possibility of an award of $550 million (Mr Batista Esq. would keep the other $550 million) should be of great interest to EEGC stockholders.
What breach of contract? No breach has been determined.
If EEGC had adhered to the agreed billing rules they would have received the witheld monies.
Smart Win had good reason for witholding the final $1.1 million, they didn't just do it out of sheer orneriness and so cavalierly wave goodbye to the $3.9 million already handed over.
If you aren't interested in discussion of the court case then just skip it. Agreed any proceeds from a successful outcome would probably be too late to save GSLM's bacon and the oil exploration but it would be money in the bank for EEGC to splurge on other stuff such as re-inventing itself as a high tech company.
But please don't tell others what may or may not be discussed on the board.
Mr Batista's funding of the case is not open ended, he has set an upper limit.
This is what 5.1 actually states:
5.1 Joint Venture
The parties will negotiate in good faith and agree full joint venture and operating documents based on the terms set out in Schedule 1 as soon as reasonably practicable after the date of this memorandum and in any event all contents of the joint venture documents must be agreed between the parties by 31 July 2008 or such other dates as agreed by the parties, but certainly no later than October 15th 2008. The joint venture which Smart Win has the option to enter into in accordance with those documents is the "Joint Venture".
The parties do not agree to a joint venture but only to the preparation of a joint venture document which will govern a join venture IF Smart Win were to excercize it option to proceed to with a joint venture (the "Joint Venture").
Your statement is an extraordinary misrepresentation of the true position.
As such, the MOU states:
(5.1) The parties agree to a full joint venture ... no later than Oct. 15, 2008.
There was no agreed upon joint venture, it is just grasping at nebulous legal straws.
What JV meetings have been held, what decisions reached on a forward program and what funding been provided since this fantasy JV was formed?
Answer : none, because there is no JV.
The whole notion is quite pathetic and a travesty.
This just gets sillier all the time.
From PR of 30 October 2008:
The MOU, intended to be finalized in a formal agreement by the end of this month, would give Smart Win the exclusive option to commit up to $45 million in consideration for up to a 50 percent stake in a Joint Venture with GSLM on its SEL 13/98 license area. That option would be required to be exercised by Smart Win either within 15 days after GSLM completes drilling of its first well or by October 15, whichever is later.
The first well has not been completed and Smart Win has not exercised the option referred to.
Joint Ventures are formed by the deliberate intent of both parties and do not happen just by accident or through some shyster's legalistic machinations.
Smart Win denies there was any JV formed and the facts and common sense are on their side. Mr Batista's too-clever-by-half chicanery isn't going to change that.
The whole basis of JVs is good faith and trust at the outset by both parties and if a JV were to be enforced on one unwilling party the whole rationale becomes redundant. No judge in his right mind would enforce a JV on an unwilling party even if there was some devious legal loophole that might seem to allow it.
A lead in presumably to them being on the verge of signing a deal for truckloads of cash but a little more patience is required.
Patience. Its a recap and a lead in to whats coming.
I wouldn't want to split hairs but it's more a case of the pipeline runs from the mainland (where the gas is) to Tasmania (where the gas isn't). With plentiful gas at the mainland source I don't see why gas would be sent to the mainland (at least for some time) even if GSLM were to discover a considerable quantity. The Tas domestic gas market isn't very large (mainly hydro electric).
See the map on the Intro Message page.
Tasmania is part of Australia just as Hawaii is part of the United States. The pipeline runs between Tasmania and the mainland.
I think you miss the point that they are not reported on by RPS Energy who reviewed all the seismic information. But I am not going to get into some mud-wrestling argument over domes that if they exist at all were not worthy of inclusion in the RPS Energy report. They had their work cut out with domes that were 2% at best COS without wasting their time on the completely hopeless.
I think you will find they hope they'll find lots of oil and/or gas rather than coal at Mt Lloyd, although it would be news to RPS Energy who had apparently not heard of it or at least failed to dignify it with a mention in its comprehensive report.
But we are used to exciting new domes appearing and disappearing at whim (Samson, Elijah and Lightning domes said to have been discovered in 2007 and announced with some fanfare were never heard of again).
i hope eegc finds lots of coal at mt lloyd dome
It's a dog's breakfast blog piece that contains some misleading and incorrect comments.
The content is very clearly not appropriate for a newspaper article.
Times must be very desperate when this amateurish mish mash is relentlesly promoted as being a serious article in a serious newspaper.