Member Info for Caterham7

100% agree with Jimmy. PRD had to notify market of imminent well spud which was to occur in holiday period. It costs money (does anyone know how much?) to issue an RNS, so I see little point in incurring cost of RNS, couple of days after spud, just to tell market that the well has spudded as per RNS issued a few days before. If PRD had done that, I would have griped about poor use of limited funds. Paul and Lonny are running a frugal operation! I have no time for companies wasting money on pointless RNS.

O&W - I worked in Morocco for many years. Helped write the original Moroccan Oil & Gas tax code back in 1990's. Morocco is desperate for an independant energy sector with plentiful foreign investment. Last thing they will do is deter foreign investment.

PRD partner is state oil company ONHYM which has 25% stake

Its standard practice to convert gas volume into barrels oil equivalent....

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/barrelofoilequivalent.asp

Very simple rule of thumb is to divide Million cubic feet gas (Mcf) by 6, to get barrels oil equivalent.

Useful oil patch conversion tool...

https://www.rigzone.com/calculator/default.asp?catid=3&catname=Fluid+Conversions#calc

I should have added……the fans are very unlikely to be under filled with gas, because the HSSI results indicate HC influence at surface, ie, one could argue that the gas volume generated within the Guercif Basin exceeds the total trapping volume of the turbidite fans.

D80 - good summary. Just a very minor pedantic terminology correction - you refer to the MOU2 ‘gas column’. To be 100% correct, it is actually the ‘closure height’ based on maximum mapped spill point / AVO anomaly. It is possible (but extremely unlikely) that MOU2 fan is under filled with gas, in which case the gas column would be less than the mapped closure height. Very unlikely, but I’m a stickler for correct terminology to avoid confusion!

I’m reasonably comfortable that flow rates will be good. GAS will flow like hell from these proven UNCOMPACTED sands. I suspect that there will be some fine tuning of test equipment in order to optimise flow from the unconsolidated sands.

Can anyone offer-up examples of gas discoveries in unconsolidated sands, that have failed to flow with reasonable rates?

AIM is littered with many casualties that have failed to flow oil from tight rock, but PRD is already proven not to face those challenges.

C7

Thanks for the links Kasjnaton.

To me, the HSSI data is a bit like seep / slick data (marine and land). In a virgin undrilled basin, a positive seep indication is definitely positive, because it proves presence of working HC source rock, but beyond that, many of my colleagues would argue that seepage of hydrocarbons to surface is maybe a sign of a breached trap!

In the case of Guercif, I think the HSSI was of value in derisking MOU-1 prior to drilling. However, now that MOU-1 has already unequivocally proven presence of gas on the licence, and the remaining undrilled fans can now be optimally derisked through seismic amplitude comparison with MOU-1, Im not sure that HSSI contributes to any additional forward derisking. This is a positive observation - I think the licence evaluation has already progressed beyond point where HSSI adds value.

Hi Keith - good posts this morning.

Two questions:
1. Do you know what is global success rate of HSSI as an exploration predictive tool? I’ve Googled, but can’t find global stats.
2. I used to teach Deepwater Depositional Systems (Turbidites) internal course at an extremely large Anglo-Dutch oil company. The pulsed nature of turbidites flows, and separation by shale drapes, generally results in stacked turbidite bodies not being in pressure communication. To invoke basin scale pressure communication across multiple turbidite sand bodies would require basal erosion and down cutting of inter-fan shale drapes. In the few bits of seismic I’ve seen across the MOU fan bodies, I get the feeling these are more constructional (lower energy) fan systems, as opposed to erosional (High energy). I actually view this as a positive - if PRD aim for a simple CNG production facility, this will be lot more doable from large isolated fan bodies with unconnected gas columns, as opposed to potentially connected volumes with much greater column height. The resource volumes will be the same, but gas pressures more manageable. Based purely on me eyeballing .ppt slides on PRD website - so my quick observation is likely very error prone! Are you able to make any better / alternative observations on MOU fan continuity?

Exciting times. I’m sitting on six figure £ of PRD investment, and feeling confident of the Geology.

Typical (very simplified) data based decision process is as follows:
1. Do 'live' MWD/LWD indicate penetration of potentially commercial (minimum net pay thickness satisfied) reservoir sands? If NO, then P&A well. If YES, proceed to running wireline logs.
2. Do wireline logs further support presence of potentially commercial in-place HC volumes that are suitable for flow testing?. If NO, then P&A well. If YES, proceed to flow testing.

Given the high cost of rig time, the commercial cut-off hurdles (reservoir thickness, etc) will very likely already be calculated, and will aid quick real time decision making.

As an Exploration Geologist, I have been involved in drilling of well over 100 oil and gas wells (some in Morocco).
1. The MWD / LWD logs available at TD, typically give you 80-90% of the final answer.
2. Once the wireline data is available, a thorough evaluation will not take more than 2-3 days max.

Are they not running an LWD tool behind drill bit, which would give preliminary results ahead of wireline? If so, the LWD results would be available for the TD RNS.

Based on the trade price, are those blocks of 50k not sells?

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/bankers-pour-cold-water-red-hot-coal-2022-11-24/

Till now, the general assumption seems to have been that the potential acquirer / funder of the project would have exclusivity to market the ore, eg, Chinese or Australians, etc. This mornings RNS now breaks that assumption - Glencore get marketing exclusivity, but not funding the project. So how will the project be funded, if Glencore takes the ore?

I suspect HAA will want to name key funding partners in the RNS, in which case each of those funding organisations has to check and approve the RNS wording for factual correctness. In my own experience of managing FTSE listed drilling operations, there is always some minor wordsmithing requested, and the process can take 24-48 hours.

Im not 100% convinced you are correct BRV.

Googling many definitions, suggests 'Ring-Fencing' is a financial term generally associated with different taxation of different assets (field) within a concession. Don't think it means that part of the concession can be carved out and sold to someone else. I suspect there is a mechanism for selling part of the concession onto another operator, but not sure what that is in Morocco.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/996331/malcy-s-blog-oil-price-ujo-zephyr-predator-trinity-iog-reabold-and-finally-996331.html

Ive been involved in drilling of well over 100 global oil and gas wells over last 30 years, and only two I can think of were drilled on Turn-Key contracts ("all-in rates").

Incorrect assumption - rig daily rate normally triggers when they start moving rig to location (rig transit rates lot less than rig daily drilling rates). All they have done so far is sign the contract, so daily rates not yet being incurred.