Replies to post #24749 on Empire Energy Corporation Intl. (fka EEGC)

[Drunken Sailor]

He might be coming to his senses a bit more now:

http://www.stockopedia.co.uk/content/april-update-drilling-soon-to-start-in-tasmania-65213/?submitted=10#10

I do not dispute the findings in the http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc/dominfo/download/TR3_92_103/TR3_92_103.pdf report. However, that was back in 1958.
I also do not dispute the fact that in the Empire Energy 8k Filed with SEC on 6 Mar 2012

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/788206/000107878212000626/f8k030612_8k.htm that EEGC intend to focus on the same 500 sq km area, however 500 sq km is a large area and back in 1958 K. L. Burns only knew a limited amount of what was under that area. Today more is known and more Coal has been found. Although there is still more that is unknown that lies below the surface.

Referring back to your 1958 report the Introduction refers to information known from just "two bore holes and a detailed survey of only a small portion of the coalfields".
In their Abstract it is suggested "that further surface prospecting and surveying is recommended".

Pg 93. states that there may be variation to the thickness of the seams in the region to those known in 1958. They also admit that with the limited area explored it is difficult to predict what seems occur in the North and South.
Pg 95. Conclusion. They acknowledge that their known seams (1958) may improve elsewhere in the region. Thickness changes needed to be examined in the known seams. They had reason to believe there were more coal measures.

All this was from limited knowledge at the time and suggesting more research was required.
I am aware that EEGC has done extensive geological work over the last several years and many more core samples had been taken. Some of which only produced similar findings, however there were others that produced a lot better results.

My reply

Good so you agree that the 1958 report is totally relevant, as it is the report of the drilling referred to in Empires 8k - there has not actually been any other drilling in that area since - all reports are logged with MRT (that is where the link to the report I posted came from). If you are aware of more recent ones done by Empire or their antecedent companies (remember they only have a licence to explore for oil / nat gas – the Coal / Coal bed methane licences they say they applied for about 2 months ago and which they claim NBD provided a proof of funds for over 1 month ago still have not appeared on the MRT website at all, not even as “under consideration” so you might like to think where the hold up in that chain could be) please post the links. However, if your statement: "I am aware that EEGC has done extensive geological work over the last several years and many more core samples had been taken. Some of which only produced similar findings, however there were others that produced a lot better results" is just another bit of wishful thinking to try to bolster your bruised ego, then please do not repeat it, as it is false. I take it that you also agree that by putting in an 8k that the thickness was “over 3m” when in fact it was over 3 Feet, Empire's 8k was false and misleading.

I agree the CPR report comments on all aspects of the geology of the whole of Tasmania, however you must not confuse a 300m thick “coal measure” as stated in the CPR with a 300m thick coal seam as you put in your “update”.

Pg 31 of CPR

“The upper most Triassic coal measures are up to 300 metres thick and are dominated by volcanic lithic sandstones and minor clay stones. These also contain commercial coal reserves in north- eastern Tasmania”

There are indeed over 500 Million Tonnes of coal in Tasmania (not all of it recoverable), it is predominantly in the north-east, ie nowhere near Mt Lloyd, which has an inferred coal resource of less than 2 Million Tonnes. Tasmania mines about 500 Thousand Tonnes of coal per year, which is sufficient to satisfy domestic demand – Tasmanian coal is not exportable, and has never been exported, because it has a very high ash content – typically around 25% (though there are some very small quantities that are better than this – indeed there was one very small seam in Mt Lloyd that had a 10% ash content). Coking quality coal is a relatively rare and therefore far more expensive commodity - $235 per tonne Vs $60 for Kentucky thermal coal. There are lots of factors that go into determining if a coal is suitable for coking and generally it requires a blend of 2 or more bituminous coals, however an overriding consideration for all coking quality coals is they must have a low ash content – think about it - coke is basically pure carbon, by virtue of the coal being heated to a high temp in an oxygen free environment to get rid of the volatiles. If you started with coal that was 25% ash – ie non-volatile incombustible material, you would end up with coke that was about 50% non-carbon. So I fully agree that there is coal in Tasmania, there is also some coal in the Mt Lloyd area, a very small proportion of which has 10% ash content. And I agree, that while it does not look particularly promising (there are more reports that back this up and I have posted them on iii), it is not impossible for there to be deposits that are marginally commercially viable in the area. Empire getting granted the licences, then having the funding and expertise to prove up a commercially viable project is a whole different question.

Can you now agree that far from me being this mythical anti Bendall blogger, who is supposedly hiding in Indonesia, I am in fact just a TXO shareholder who first bought in in 2005, then foolishly added to my holdings because I took all the Empire nonsense at face value without doing proper research, and, when I realised my mistake I sold all but one of my shares and have since done nothing more than alert others to the unseen risks and deceptions (eg 3 feet being reported as 3m) that are going on?

We do not need to agree on every point - there are plenty of grey areas. But we must agree to be civil and not to try to claim black is white - a chance of success is a chance of success not a risk of failure. You must also drop the inside knowledge claims. If you or I have a verifiable fact then post the link to support it, if we have an opinion then let us be clear that it is just our own opinion.

There are a lot of very worried Empire and TXO shareholders out there, who need to make their own investing decisions based on sound information and you pretending you have inside info and then taking a patronising primary school teacher "you will have to wait until we are told it is lunchtime before you can have a wee, just cross your legs and keep quiet" approach is really not helping anyone.

Let me know if you want to engage in reasoned debate.

Thanks for the background on most of this, I am aware that I probably ought to attribute more to you, I am just trying to keep the flow of the argument going.