London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Changed the thread header to make it more relevant. Another opinion on drilling the Jurassic, I have referred to Caterham7's expertise last weekend - he posted 13th July 2023 07.21 - " I have worked in O&G Exploration for over 30 years. I think the Jurassic test has potential to be one of the most globally significant discoveries of the last decade."
While on MOU-5, here's a correction: my apologies, I mistakenly said last week that SV-101 is specced to 2000m. It is actually 3000+m, so if there is a will to drill MOU-5 down into the Triassic, there is certainly a way. Here's the specification sheet:
https://starvalleydrilling.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Rig-Specifications-101-.pdf
ROB. .. .. 6th May. .. Would beđif #PRD
Enters the First Extension Period say one month today
Folk might want to consider the work obligations
And which elements thereof
Have ALREADY been carried out
đI have been in this game a long time.
đNEVER before found a Guerc. 9 Hours ago. .. .. .. Would be good if SV101 could drill over 3,000metres
Yes....
You read that correctly...
THREE thousand metres
Now look again at the work obligations in the FIRST EXTENSION PERIOD
Contract novation in sight?
grh. .. .. . rob's trusty detector meter
identified bull****...ulterior motives
during the first words uttered by a certain lse poster
looks like rob was right to trust his experience
some folk are keen that #prd
should not drill mou5
If you sincerely believe it would not be a good idea to drill MOU-5, please ring +212 5377-65400 and ask for the nice Mr Mohammed. He speaks English very well and may remember me from when he was working in his previous job in Brussels in the 90's. Explain why you don't think it is in his interest for Morocco to become self-sufficient in gas for industrial power, electricity generation, fertiliser production and cement production. Remember he has vast personal investments in some of these areas, and will need to maintain economic growth in order to ensure social stability, thus avoiding a 'Moroccan Spring' that would terminate his family's relevance. Explain that it is good for the country to continue to import very high-priced gas from Spain, and to wait years & years for offshore production of indigenous gas. Please post his response here, if there are not too many ******s involved.
When we testing F and M? You seem to have it all worked out. Mou5 is not as important as testing what we already have.
Porters,
Did you not do dot to dots when you were younger buddy.
Some really good posts especially over the last couple of days on lse and x.
Personally it makes sense to me.
Nobody can be 100% certain of anything when it comes to this industry but I am sure itâll come.
Post's and tweets are just others opinions. Not one covers the what now seems a delay in testing again. Official company comms are what matters and are lacking here.
@keith and ROB,
With great respect, you are putting suggestions in the mouth of a certain poster that is a clear misrepresentation of his stated position.
Nowhere has he said that MOU-5 should NOT E drilled, only that the logical order should be to drill and flow test first, to establish cash flow from a Cng operation.
Stick to a straight narrative in future, please.
PORTERS: you say we have a delay in testing (?), please see statement from the RNS, "Mobilisation of the Sandjet crew and equipment will occur shortly after Petroleum Agreement Amendment #4 has been ratified and all necessary regulatory approvals for Sandjet rigless testing have been received." ... as no date has been made public we therefore have no delay.
And Jimmy is in the best position to plan out the companies strategy is he older?
All some people are doing are playing on the fact that we havenât tested yet etc etc and it is getting boring tbh. People have tried discussing strategies etc, what the risks are and what the potential is.
Time for people to either believe in the company and their investment, sell up or wait for some green numbers then clear off.
Getting tedious.
They say that you make your mind up on someone within seconds of meeting them.
Same can be said when reading posters names.
Perhaps youâre older but are you wiser?
Bobsled latest presentation testing first half of q2 mid May yet here we are and not even a start date that's a delay in my book.
Some nicer chunky buys this morning, is the sleeping giant about to wake?
@O & W. Yes, it was suggested that flow testing MOU-4 before drilling MOU-5 should be performed, and I had mentioned this myself in the second paragraph of my post yesterday at 00.33 as being a good idea. What I was responding to this morning was specifically the statement I quoted ""If the carbonates fail to flow gas [in MOU-4 Jurassic], then donât drill mou 5, so a cheapie risk."
I repeat my belief that MOU-5 should definitely be drilled irrespective of the presence of gas in the Jurassic carbonates in MOU-4, for which I gave my reasons. I find it odd that someone should suggest otherwise, apparently only to save some money, especially since given the expenditure already that I detailed, that saving would not be very much.
Ford,
The company raised equity on three occasions to sand jet perforate and flow test with a view to cng production and it has yet to happen.
I remain concerned that more high risk drilling will occur before we proove whatâs already found.
I like mou 5, but it would seem to me higher risk and ideally funded from cng production cashflow.
Jimmy
I'm not sure why there is an ongoing debate.
*Sandjet-based testing of MOU-1, -3 & -4 is fully funded and for all we know may already be under way.
*PRD's share of setting up a CNG facility is fully-funded, and is awaiting flow test results and finalisation of the GSA with Afriquia Gaz. I assume agreement on payment for CNG trailers will be sorted at the same time.
*Drilling of MOU-5 is fully funded, we are in the queue for the rig.
It's not a question of which of the three - everything is in process and will be done at the best time, I am sure none of the team is sitting round sipping mint tea and puffing on a local spliff.
Keith.
The reason there is a debate is precisely because sand jet perforation and flow testing has been fully funded on three occasions and has yet to happen, that should now be the priority.
With regard to flow testing the carbonates in mou 4 , if such flow testing unequivocally establishes the gas water contact thatâs great.
The rns stated.
2 metres of likely gas reservoir with average porosity 19.9% (maximum 20.6%) and average gas saturation 56% (maximum 73%).â
If such intersection only flows water and no gas then the log interpretations need to be reconsidered .
Jimmy
Keith itâs obvious what needs to be done, the only question is why hasnât it been done in the last 3 years? Please can you or Rob give a rationale reason why none of our wells have been flow tested to a point where there is a probably positive result?
Depth 3000 mtrs plus ,is only limited by the motors ability to turn the drill ,if its soft going then 133,000 deca newtons is the limit on turning force,with enough pipe it could go a lot deeper if required ,if soft rock/sandstone/sand only, easily enough for our use, as keith states mou5 is bang on the best drill site, triassic to be firmly prodded into releasing its prize a 245 metre of trapped gas at high pressure if been cooked and compressed,, a bit. didnt someone post/give a rough estimate of what we could find there as higher pressures will give a significant larger volume of gas?
Dakad,
Matched by a chunky sale !
AV.. thatâs what the market are showingâŠ..
Just sit & watch đ„±
@OF - May I suggest you read back through a few RNS's?
They were aware that MOU-1 was high risk for conventional explosive perforation - it has the big advantages of unconsolidated sand reservoirs with resultant high porosity & permeability, plus overpressured gas. Unfortunately this brings with it the need to use higher density drilling mud which in turn increases the likelihood of easier penetration of the mud into the loose reservoir, giving rise to formation damage. The decision was taken to delay testing until all wells drilled were ready, partly in order to save money and partly to give time to reassess the perforation needs.
Management then decided upon Sandjet perforation, and the gear & team were booked. The planned programme had to be abandoned since another Morocco operator held on to the wireline logging equipment that is necessary for accurate positioning of the Sandjet equipment - the delay would have taken PRD to beyond the end of their then current licence extension period.
Everything was rebooked on the assumption that new approvals would be received mid-April. On the 1st May we were informed that the requisite licence extension had indeed been granted, and that preparation for flow testing was under way. Shareholders do not have any indication at the moment as to whether there are further delays, everything is on schedule, or whether testing has already started. You can either decide this is poor communications, or alternatively that it is sensible strategy to play cards close to one's chest.
Filly funded Keith ?Roughly 6 million to cover all 3 operations and 6 months running costs Imo is nit enough
GRH. .. .. .. đ Flow rates =
Scale of SP
đ Delineation =
Scale of Deal
#PRD
@Porters. You are of course entitled to do your own calculations and present your own opinions, perhaps you have been the CEO or Chairman of a successful O & G explorer. I am equally entitled to give precedence to Paul Griffiths' statements. I do so since I know he has actually held both positions.
Blooming heck Fred.
This has been explained several times by posters and the board to a reasonable degree.
You have understand some of the logistics without it being completely spelt out for you.
Jimmy,
We had a mess up last year that cost us our window that was out of our control.
Without seeing the poker cards on the table how can anyone make any judgement.