yes I’ve gone through the Sa govt Website and read the extension requests. Interesting that the extensions provide them sufficient time to “reach commercial rates of production for the targeted time”, we would’ve been in a different position if no extensions were provided. But here we are.
now you erroneously posit that because they required an extension that it brings the 2p resource status into question..? let’s explore the vexatious and unfounded nature of your allegations.
-the second PCD extension request was submitted on 01 feb 2019, and granted until 09 may 2019.
-PCD technical data is cemmercial in confidence information, due to the potential monetised value that it may hold
-PCD “raw data” (CEO of MHA) was provided to parties supporting the eXternal PRMS work, which included:
GeoConsult Pty Ltd.
Prudentia Process Consulting
Zamco Energy Pty Ltd
inGuage Energy Pty Ltd; and
MHA Petroleum consultants, who gathered all data and reports from constituent consulting firms.
-there are strict parameters set out by SPE, AAPG, WPC, and SPEE which must be conformed to for determining a resource.
-By 28 May 19 (AFTER the extension request) MHA, along with above companies were satisfied to put their professional credentials on the line by certifying the 2P reserve, and that “a high degree of certainty exists that it is commercially recoverable” (see WPC PRMS requirements), which with the commercial in confidence technical data provided to them was sufficient to satisfy.
-prudentia Consulting Later went on to assist with PFS using PCD information provided.
so having reviewed the timeline, read through all releases, and understanding the framework of requirements that consulting companies must meet to make a determination for a reserve, I am 100% confident that sufficient checks and balances are in place to ensure no corners were cut, and that NRZ holds the technology, as proven in the PCD to commercially extract using ISG.
Based on the fact that LCK requested two extensions to ensure they had the technology working for sufficient time to meet PCD requirements. You allege that “I don’t think the PCD ever reached commercial rates of production for the targeted time”
which is a more credible source here, someone with an axe to grind, and active interest in the financial ruin of a company; or the half dozen consulting firms, bound by strict requirements, with access to all technical data confirming “with a high degree of certainty” that the PCD was successful and the resource can be commercially extracted using ISG.
See this is a prime example of taking a sub-strata of information and conflating it. Yet you’ll accuse me of “in accurate quotes, distortions, outright lies and extrapolations” don’t play the victim when you are instigating things with unfounded allegations.
regarding partners. “Dailem is not risking one cent of their own capital in the construction of this plant”
wrong. do you realise how much it costs in staff and legal fees to scope, analyse, plan, negotiate and form agreements for billion dollar projects. The staffing and legal fees will be in the millions to tens of millions. Yes they’ll make revenue as contract payments become payable, but before any of that began they sunk millions into scoping the project.
JL, where do you sit? You’re defending IW, but these types of assertions are baseless and vexatious, as objective information proves it false.
Expand
(20min delay)