Member Info for Gudin

Within 60 days, it could take less. If they applied 5th Feb then the latest should be the start of April.

Jimmy

60 days from application to get the exploration permit approved.

Page 2

https://cms.law/en/media/local/cms-cmno/files/publications/publications/conducting-oil-and-gas-activities-in-morocco#:~:text=The%20MMEM%20is%20in%20charge%20of%20granting%20exploration%20permits%20through,the%20MMEM%20and%20the%20MMF.

Char presentation a couple of days ago stated they expected to start drilling soon, so char.

Char and Sou will have contracts as well, that's why they give an "expected" date. Sound "expected" the rig to become available by the end of March. Char has EIA approvals for 19 wells in five years, the owners of the rig will be bending over backwards to get this business.

Sound are supposedly using it after Char for one well also. Guess we will find out on Thursday, May seems unlikely with the additional deeper targets now though.

It's an exploration permit it has nothing to do with the licence. They cannot carry out any work until the next permit is issued. There are no adjustments to the terms of the licence. The permits have already exceeded the two years additional scope, so maybe they are discussing a further extension to the initial period or the beginning of the First extension period which has a new set of commitments.

The 5th Feb was never more than an exploration permit expiring, it has no impact on established terms of the licence. It's something invented on here to promote the idea that they were forced to conduct testing with the underpowered guns. If they had cancelled the testing there would have been zero impact on the licence.

Just going off what Paul said at 11mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdHMex84Utw

Sand jetting has never been used in Africa so there are zero examples of it working there.

What else do you want people to say?

Posters allowed to post their views without being accused of having "dread" something which you are guilty of( note the dig at armchair geologists) The biggest armchair geologist on here is given free reign, apples and oranges.

The advocates for balance are usually always the first to attempt to stifle a discussion.

The zeal for balance disappears when 1500x baggers, special dividends and Facebook posts of road contractors are discussed though.

In the current market for raising finance, the board would be negligent if they were not considering the finances going into a high risk testing program.

Do they go into testing with dwindling funds knowing a second failure will hit the price or give themselves a firmer base beforehand. A potential awkward situation they have found themselves in.

Sand jetting operations have failed to clear the formation damage at BCE. They have announced a placing to fund a side track to attempt to rectify.

Different reserviors types but there is clearly a chance all three wells here are fubar, what percentage that is anybody's guess. The risk here has increased as perforating guns have failed and it's all eggs in the sand jet basket. Maybe the drop was justified on the phase 1 testing failure after all.

The presentation will hopefully clear this up.

Posters keep on repeating the 5th Feb as a deadline that the company was forced to meet. The exploration permit expired on the 5th Feb meaning that any work that was not started on this date could not be started until a new permit was issued.

https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2014/03/oil-and-gas-regulation-in-morocco-one-of-the-most-attractive-schemes-in-the-world.pdf

"The exploration permit is valid for a maximum of eight (8) consecutive years divided into periods (an initial period followed by one or two additional successive periods) determined by an administrative order granting the exploration permit. When hydrocarbons are discovered during the last year of validity of the permit, its duration may be extended by the Minister in charge of Energy for an exceptional period which may not exceed two years."

Note the word extended. Not adjusted, no new requirements added. Extended. Testing is not a requirement of the original licence and cannot be added when the licence is extended. There was no forcing to do anything.

The exploration permit that refers to ends on the 5th meaning that no work can be carried out until a new permit is issued. It does not mean that if they did not start testing they would lose the licence. They could have delayed testing and waited for more suitable guns in the next permit stage without any penalty, they choose to proceed.

There is no mention of the 5th Feb date in the RNS for 12th Jan announcing the phase 1 testing program or the 26th Jan.

There is no requirement to test in the terms of the contract and PRD have exceeded the minimum requirements of the work commitments. Clearly laid out page 13 of the ITR. A contract is a contract.

They thought the guns would work, there was no forcing by anyone. If they had not proceeded with the test it would have had no impact on the licence.

Phase 1 was to test reservoir quality and potential flowrates. There was no mention of evaluating formation damage that they are now claiming as the main aim.

Could you point me to this clause in the contract, was this mentioned in the recent report either?

A test they knew was likely to fail is price sensitive and has to be communicated. If a deadline is approaching that could cause a breach in contract this is also price sensitive and needs communicating. Neither of these things happened.

Zebra

They thought the guns would work, otherwise they would have been forced to mention that they were using equipment that was not up to the job. They failed due to the formation damage being worse than expected, no conspiracy nothing to do with timelines. The rns was the same as many companies issue when something has not gone to plan. The turd was rolled in glitter and the failure was attempted to be passed off as data gathering due to wrong equipment.

I would sell if I thought they had spent hundreds of thousands for no reason or that the Morrocan authorities had forced them to do this. Wasting money on a flawed test is in neither prd or Morrocan authorities benefit.

Two and a half years ago Mou 1 was completed. Plenty of time to complete testing. The fault of scrambling around so close to a deadline lies solely at Paul's door. Stop making excuses for poor management. You are also claiming that Paul with all his experience has been duped by a third party. Did he not check and sign off on the analysis before spending hundreds of thousands on a ten day program. are you claiming he is party to this?

Accusing the company of leaking results allowing some to sell is treading on dangerous ground. I would stop posting before you land yourself in trouble.

They were expecting 8" of formation damage( signed of by Pg 40+ experience) the guns were rated to 12". We can all agree that 12" is larger than 8" putting to bed the undersized argument.

The formation damage was greater than 12" leaving the option of Pg 40+ years experience admitting he got it wrong or claiming in hindsight that although he never mentioned it before he knew it would fail.

He choose the latter because the Pg never makes mistakes.

Bold claims that Paul withheld information about the testing program being flawed and using undersized guns I assume you have reported the company to the relevant authorities. They did state yesterday that they expected the "undersized" guns to work so maybe you are wrong.

They also have had 2 plus years to do some testing to meet the Guercif Agreement, so the company only has themselves to blame for this and not some shadowy third party.

Perforating being the second option is a red herring and has only surfaced due to it failing. They even stated in yesterday's RNS that their analysis showed it was expected to work. They have mentioned perforating numerous times in RNS and even in presentations before audiences.

Testing was always a two pronged approach with perforating and sandjetting used for the most formation damage/ unconsolidated sands. Disingenuous posters are trying to promote the narrative that it was a rushed job with underpowered equipment to disguise the fact that it was a failure.

The question about testing Mou 1 is a relevant one. if testing had identified the formation damage could the drilling mud at the subsequent wells have been adjusted to prevent the damage. Failure to test could be a costly mistake and needs explaining.