Tribe Technology set to deliver healthy pipeline of orders from Tier-One miners. Watch the video here.
@sempahorRed: Correct, AIUI, this HAZID/HAZOP relates specifically to the risk factors and operational elements of bioMSAR and MSAR for the ship in the upcoming POC and LONO trials. They rate how likely a particular failure mode is, and the severity of the impact should it occur, and then put in place mitigations and procedures to mitigate that (e.g. extra redundancies, safety procedures, software).
@StockCheque: As far as I can tell, visiting Klaipeda is just because she's being put on the ScanBaltic-USA route and that's one of the ports she's due to visit during that route. The HAZID/HAZOP specifically relates to the upcoming trials, it is not required for her normal operation on standard fuels. I expect her visit to Klaipeda will just be to offload and collect containers, and to get to the start of her new route. I can see from MSC.com that she's due to leave back towards Poland tomorrow, and then onto Gothenburg soon after (you can use the p2p routing facility on msc.com in combination with the link below to get routing estimates).
https://www.msc.com/en/newsroom/customer-advisories/2023/march/msc-upgrades-scanbaltic-to-usa-service
And she was already inspected and had her certifications issued by an LR surveyor after her dry dock period, which you can verify from yourself on the LR website.
This is a HAZOP/HAZID specifically relating to the handling of bioMSAR and MSAR fuel when bunkering, operations on the vessel, fuel switching, de-bunkering, emergency procedures, maintenance procedures/requirements, special handling requirements, etc.
For example, the fuel should not be allowed to become excessively hot, or its phases will separate.
What to do if the fuel spills, and how dangerous is it to the crew and environment, and how likely are those risks.
How the fuel should be pumped and stored (e.g. using diaphragm pumps instead of aggressive impeller pumps).
As I understand it, it's that kind of stuff.
Anyway, PharoahRocher has professionally been involved in those studies on numerous occasions, so his writeup is worth a re-read.
Doubt it, Leandra uses Lloyd's Register classification society, not DNV.
As far as I can recall, JM has advised that HAZOP/HAZID is a paper exercise (well, video meetings), and the challenge is getting all people involved to be available at the same time. They need representatives for QED, engine OEM, flag state, classification society, insurer, ship operator, onboard engineering (e.g. a chief engineer), onboard leadership (e.g. a captain), etc.
Check out PharoahRocher's post about HAZOP/HAZID.
I doubt her current location is specifically relevant to HAZOP/HAZID, other than they are putting her onto her new route (ScanBaltic to USA), which appears to be aligned with what JM advised probably over a year ago as the one of the most likely routes.
No again.
Hoodoo will undoubtedly continue to argue that the contract is ambiguous, and that the matter must be resolved in district court.
DOGM's advice to the DOGM Board is that they should continue (delay) HSO's request for agency action (re: unitization) until the contractual dispute has been resolved in court. The DOGM Board does not have jurisdiction to interpret contracts.
From what I have seen, the contracts are clearly mutually exclusive, but Hoodoo (in my opinion) are exploiting the procedural and legal mechanisms available to them to punish HSO/ACO with costly delays. No doubt they are kindly offering to desist in their assertions in return for a free slice of the pie 🙄.
Agreed, Vince.
Just my opinion, but it rarely benefits a company for its shareholders to publicly discuss the idea of engaging in malfeasance that would get the company into serious trouble.
That is not true, yesterday's hearing did not approve anything.
Approval for the original pilot well programme was given last year, but the unitization request has not yet been heard nor approved. This has obviously been enormously delayed by Hoodoo's interference.
In short, all yesterday's hearing looked to establish was whether Hoodoo had standing to participate in the HSO/ACO unitization hearings that will occur in August.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
The board passed a resolution establishing that Hoodoo *does* have standing, but that the facts established at the previous hearing are conclusive.
So, Hoodoo can't relitigate anything that was established as fact previously (they didn't participate when they had the chance).
ColdFishPie, I don't think it was a slam-dunk for either party.
Here is the resolution the board passed (my transcription): "I move the board to recognise Hoodoo as a proper party with standing as to Heavy Sweet Oil's request to unitize subject lands, under the condition all facts within this board's December 8th 2022 order be conclusively established regarding lands within the pilot project moving forward".
Hence, AIUI, Hoodoo get to participate (and probably try to impose additional delays), but they will have to accept the facts established by the DOGM Board during previous hearings they did not participate in. That means certain findings and facts are 'locked in', which will give them less room to manoeuvre and argue.
Of course, if as we suspect, their modus operandi is to delay, then they'll always find a way to string things out by focusing on topics where the board does not have jurisdiction (i.e. nonsensical interpretation of contracts requiring litigation in district court). This is purely my opinion, but Hoodoo appear to be using delay tactics to coerce HSO, rather than actually expecting to win.
Anyway, fast forward to August, and will be interesting to see what happens and whether litigation on the contract is initiated in parallel.
She previously worked for SILTA (schools land that HSO and Hoodoo are leasing), and was involved in the drafting of the contract that Hoodoo (and others) use. The contract, from what we have seen, appears to clearly state that Hoodoo are not entitled to the resource HSO want to extract and have a separate contract for.
I don't see evidence for your statement that she was biased in any way. She offered to recuse herself if anyone objected, which they did not.
Part of the issue is that contractual interpretation is generally not within the jurisdiction of the DOGM Board.
Crownos, one standout to me was that in response to board member Moon's question, Hoodoo's counsel appeared to confirm that Hoodoo are not currently doing any drilling or other activities.
This is purely my opinion, but I believe Hoodoo are deliberately slowing the regulatory process using knowingly absurd arguments that will take a long time to resolve. They presumably know the difficult financial state of some of the project participants and that their funding is contingent on the unitization approvals.
I expect they are demanding a share of the revenues from the HSO/ACO projects in return for dropping their 'objections', which may drag on for many months through various board hearings, district court, and then back to the board again.
Hi StockCheque/Haggis, the advice previously was that the full LONO would take 6-8 months (4,000 hours of engine time).
The wide range in time estimations is because:
- It depends upon the route, routes with long uninterrupted stretches are good for burning through the hours faster (this proposed route looks very good for that).
- How efficient the ports visited are (i.e. if you're straight in and out, then you spend less time idling in anchorages). Again, European ports are usually extremely fast; contrast that with the time Leandra got stuck in Port of Durban for about a week because she was in general purpose segment of the port rather than the container terminal. Huge difference!
- Restrictions: such as emissions control areas (ECAs), ports that forbid scrubbers, etc.
We're in a really strong position this time due to the new scrubber that has been installed.
If this route is the LONO one (of course, it could change), Leandra will spend a very large portion of her sailing time in ECAs (North American, North Sea, and Baltic Sea, 0.1% SOx ECAs); in these zones unscrubbed vessels cannot even use 0.5% ULSFO; instead they need to switch to extremely expensive LS-MGO (low sulphur marine gas oil — similar to diesel).
Except for ports that restrict open loop scrubbers in very small areas (and I am not aware of any of those being on the list), Leandra will be able to use high sulphur residue in her MSAR/bioMSAR formulations without needing to switch fuels. That obviously means lots of additional hours of engine time on bioMSAR/MSAR.
Hope that makes sense!
Jason has long suggested that Netherlands is the intended area to establish bunkering for the POC and LONO (at least, as of last time he mentioned it); this was for tax and logistical reasons. This new route is compatible with that suggestion, as bunkering is often done out at sea via a bunkering barge without the vessel calling into the container terminal itself.
I'm sure some of the former merchant mariners in our ranks can confirm that.
Apologies, I just realised later posts in this thread already answered the question about Leandra and Bremerhaven (and with fewer words!).
As far as I am aware, the current plan is to do full LONOs on both bioMSAR and MSAR. Having an additional vessel would half the time to formal OEM approval. I've not heard any more about the idea of running 2 vessels for a long time, though, so I'm not sure whether it's still in the offing.
Leandra and Bremerhaven would generate good comparative data on things like efficiency and emissions because they're essentially identical vessels, so it would still be an apples-to-apples comparison.
The existing partial LONO for conventional MSAR does not apply as 'credit' to reduce the new LONO requirements (sadly), because the OEM are looking at wear characteristics over prolonged and (mostly) uninterrupted real-world use.
At this point, I'd be absolutely delighted for the fuel supply situation to be clarified and get even one vessel running on our fuel!
Thanks for the comment StockCheque.
Of course HSO's attorney says that; that's their job to push for the best possible outcome by interpreting the rules as favours them (even if it's not actually the case).
According to the Department's own legal team, the Board *do* have the right to hold up the RAA that's in flight and has not yet been approved. But they cannot undo the previous one; I think you are mixing up the Board's inability to interfere with the *previous* decision, with the ability for the Board to halt progress on the *current* RAA.
I don't know how anyone can be confident it will be approved given all the factors I've mentioned that the *current* RAA will be approved.
I certainly expect, as prev outlined, that Hoodoo's bid to undo the *previous* Board ruling will be dismissed in full, so that's good for HSO.
As much as I would like it to be the case that DOGM Board bats Hoodoo aside from delaying the *current* RAA, I just don't see it as likely; I just want to be open and realistic. We will see very soon!
[Again, caveating that I'm definitely not a Utah O&G/Minerals lawyer!]
The problem is that Sullivan is not exactly like Hoodoo nor HSO, it's a combination of both and includes elements that are relevant to neither.
The (Request for Agency Action) RAA in this case is being advanced by HSO, not by Hoodoo. In Sullivan the RAA was by Sullivan, and the respondent was the existing field operator.
In Sullivan, the field was already active and the RAA was filed by Sullivan to disrupt the existing status quo.
In this case, Hoodoo are acting to stop the status quo being disrupted.
Hoodoo are also arguing they will be prejudiced by HSO being allowed to extract "their" oil, which means both sides are claiming they will be prejudiced by any action or inaction by the DOGM Board.
That means there's an irreconcilable contractual dispute which must be first resolved by the courts before they proceed. And DOGM Board cannot resolve that dispute.
I don't think any reasonable person should expect the hearing to be a slam dunk in favour of HSO. Continuance (delaying) of the RAA until the dispute is resolved seems the most logical outcome, as per DOGM's own recommendation and a reasonable reading of linked case law.
As you all know, I would be glad to be wrong and for it all to go ahead without further delay, but I think there needs to be some reasonable skepticism applied. After all, I am not a Utah O&G lawyer.
> The DOGM cannot assume that Hoodoo will win in court, so it cannot prejudice Valkor by holding up the licence in the expectation that Hoodoo win in court.
DOGM Board also can't assume HSO will win. Both sides are claiming they would be prejudiced, and hence doing nothing is likely the default position. DOGM Board are not allowed to adjudicate on the substance of the matter. That appears to be the nub of the issue...
Yes, I've read the referenced judgement. You can see it here: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2628237/sullivan-v-utah-bd-of-oil-gas-mining/
If you read through the actual facts of the case, it's not clear to me that it helps HSO/ACO, as it was about the DOGM Board denying an agency action until the courts resolved the contractual dispute in question between the parties.
In the Sullivan case, the petitioner (Sullivan) was using an agency action to try to force KMG (operator) to put money into an escrow account that he believed he was due according to the disputed contract. The DOGM Board refused to proceed with Sullivan's request for agency action until the courts had resolved their contractual dispute.
If you read the context and ruling, it's seems likely to me the Board will freeze the RAA until the courts are able to resolve the case. Alternatively, the parties could settle or use a dispute resolution process.
And yes, apols, 28th is the hearing.
StockCheque — the latest filings are from DOGM itself, not Hoodoo (see p5 onwards: https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/bbooks/2023/06_Jun/Docket/2023-022_471-03_HSOandACOil/2023-022_471-03_20230622.1_DivisionsMotionForLeaveToFileResponseToRequestForAgencyActionOutOfTime.pdf).
Their view is that (purely my lay understanding of the filings, NAL):
i) Hoodoo's attempts to disrupt the *previous* board approvals relating to HSO/ACO are inadmissible as they did not make submissions at the correct time, and they can't use the current hearings as a proxy to re-litigate matters that are already settled.
ii) DOGM Board cannot adjudicate on contractual interpretations/contractual disputes, as those are not delegated authorities (i.e. not within their jurisdiction). They should be addressed in district court.
iii) However, DOGM also recommend not approving HSO's unitisation plan until the dispute has been resolved with Hoodoo.
p3 (7/10) - emphasis mine:
"""
Given that the Board is not the appropriate body to resolve the underlying title dispute, **the Board should decline to consider HSO’s RAA seeking the establishment of the Asphalt Ridge Enhanced Recovery Unit until the parties resolve their ongoing dispute over the rights granted by the SITLA leases in the appropriate forum.**
"""
I notice that the DOGM Board tends to be quite deferential to DOGM on legal matters, but I'm sure they'll take their own advice too.
---
- HSO/ACO want to proceed with the board approvals process, with litigation/negotiations in parallel which would resolve any conflict.
- Hoodoo want to undo the previous decision and to block the current/upcoming approvals process, likely as a way to extract financial concessions out of HSO/ACO.
- DOGM appears to cut down the middle, saying previous decisions cannot be undone, but that the current approval process should be halted until the dispute between HSO and Hoodoo is resolved.
I imagine this is what Hoodoo wanted from the start, as they surely knew trying to undo the previous decision was impermissible, but this was part of a strategic approach to gum things up with extremely costly delays.
Anyway, we shall know a bit more by tomorrow evening.
The news absolutely is good, but it is contingent on various other steps being successful executed in order to become real, so it's not a dead certain yet. Market is probably reflecting that.
We need Valkor's clients HSO+ACO to:
1) fend off (IMO) vexatious litigants 'Hoodoo Mining and Production';
2) Get their plans finally approved, and get their drilling and production underway;
3) Securing a funding package for Valkor of at least $15m USD.
4) Then there are various steps to get the drilling and extraction underway, identify customers, and begin trials/commercial activity with those customers.
As always, looks like a great opportunity, just isn't plain sailing in terms of timeline or execution.