RE: Trying to explain18 Jul 2021 16:19
(This is just on TGB2a and MOU-4)
If you also take the following 3 parts from the July presentation, annual report and the MOU-1 RNS. In summary:
The COS was 10% 12 months ago….
Traces of heavier gases now confirmed from 50 year old logs…..
Gas shows exceeds expected and Anchois….
Piece this together people with what GRH has kindly laid out over the last couple of weeks.
The words evaluate, de-risk and the expected to actual results are all important.
Then I will refer you to my comment after the RNS “They. Are. Going. For. MOU4”
Extracts below:-
Rns:
Below 1,159 metres in the lower Guebbas and Hoot (using the stratigraphic nomenclature of the Rharb Basin) total background gas was from 0.7% to 1.5% (5,000 to 11,996 ppm C1) but with traces of heavier gases C2, C3 and C4. Formation gas shows of up to 1.67% (13,643 ppm total gases) were also recorded.
Annual Report:
(equivalent to the lower Hoot sand, or TGB2a) between 1,386 and 1,413 metres TVD KB (27 metres) had up to 16.2% porosity and interpreted gas saturations in the range 37 to 51%. This interval is a new additional deeper gas target for the MOU1 well at approximately 1,400 metres drilling depth. MOU1 will create an opportunity to evaluate the extreme western edge of the MOU4 Prospect.
July 2020 Presentation:
1,145 – 2,678 BCF COS 10%
Management scoping estimates 2020 Seismic and drilling required to de-risk
• Maximum porosity 16%
• NuTech confirms permeability
• 40 – 50% gas saturations
• C1 –to trace C3 gas readings on 1972 mud logs
• Total gas 0.21%
• comparable to Anchois-1 gas pay shows 0.23%
Sign In
Follow the stocks
