MOU-59 Feb 2025 16:40
I was impressed with PG’s answer to question 9 from the Investor Meet Company Q&A. The level of detail he gives is exceptional. Here I have transcribed. GLA
Q9 For the Jurassic prospect, please explain your rationale for the 50% geologic CoS as stated by the company, as opposed to the 12% as stated by TRACS in the prospectus document of August 2023.
When TRACS came out, with their risking back in 2023, we hadn't drilled MOU-4. So when we drilled MOU-4, our NuTech logging indicated,
number one, that we've found the base of the sequence that MOU-5 will be testing, the extreme edge, but the base-all edge,on the top of it, it’s just carbonate build up, it just thins into MOU-4
So, it's, it's so fortuitous, but it's right at the fault contact between the Tertiary and the Jurassic, and I had programmed the well to be where it was for that very reason, I wanted to get into the Jurassic, in a single well where I didn't have to drill 1200 meters just to find the Jurassic and I achieved what I wanted to do and set out to achieve.
We then, because we had the well data, we could run seismic inversions, you know, sophisticated technology, if you'd like, most of it proven by AI now, and identified 4 zones, what we call low impedance, which is likely to be good reservoir development and each at least 20 to 30 meters thick based on the seismic data. So, immediately our reservoir model changed in terms of volume for, MOU-5.
We also saw an analyse, other not analyse, we found historical data from GRF-1 for soil seeps which indicated thermogenic gas and some satellite, initial rudimentary satellite imagery just looking at methane, showed that there was a methane abnormality right on top of MOU-5 along a bounding fault to that which could be methane leaking to surface. We treat it cautiously because there's quite a lot of settlement in that area, but clearly, you know, the relationship of that trend to what we're picking and marking out in MOU-5, you know, 3,000 feet deeper, clearly showing some kind of a relationship, geologically, so all that was positive to affect a risking. If you're asking me how I would risk it, there is a 50% chance on the bases of all those factors, of finding at least some small gas, medium gas, where the risking gets extended up to 12% is, what are the chances of finding multi-TCF gas, well the risk is higher because you have to have a higher volume of gas generated. So that's where the different levels of risking come in but the bottom line is it depends on what you see as gas for a development scenario. We always will have enough gas in the 50% risking, in a success case for CNG gas, so we can always monetise that.
As the risk level goes up, that extra gas is needed for gas to power and that then becomes a longer-term project and a divestment project. So, risking is very subjective, I have a simple way of defining risking, and it's not scientific, it's either there or it isn’t.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
