The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Louis,
I find it extraordinary that you look at an evaluation of chariot without any reference to the proven gas volumes or indeed the low risk prospective resources which can drilled at very little incremental costs when developing the anchois field.
Jimmy
Some light reading while we wait.
https://www.academia.edu/61498232/Sedimentary_provenance_of_the_Taza_Guercif_Basin_South_Rifean_Corridor_Morocco_Implications_for_basin_emergence?email_work_card=view-paper
Jimmy
Keith
Provides detailed and useful technical and valuation data based on years of relevant experience. Invaluable for long term investors and despised by traders who take short term views irrespective of the value of the relevant assets.
J
Ls8,
I understood the 484 bcf reported by fox Davies was only in relation to 20 meters reservoir in the Jurassic carbonates, the pre drill prognosis was for 240 meters of carbonates.
Then there is the mou fan, reservoir, the Ma reservoir and a number of smaller reservoirs.
Now apply your valuation to those also.
Jimmy
Interesting to review the mou 1 testing plans with those previously announced
1. The Ma reservoir is to be tested between 769 to 912 meters and 8 horizons are to be tested, this compares with 5 horizons previously announced. These zones are important as they have been seismically correlated to 5 horizons in mou 3 between 815 to 895 meters with an seismically identified area of 59km2, so substantial volumes of potential gas if the reservoirs from the two wells can be linked.
2. The other main zone previously identified in mou 1 was the tgb2 reservoir (fan) at 1217 to 1300 meters and 10 horizons are now to be tested, this was previously 6. The previous reservoirs totaled 12 meters in 6 horizons. Equivalent sands have been encountered in mou 3 at 1379 to 1422 with 42 meters of reservoir to be tested. The thicker reservoir is consistent with the geological model of a turbidite fan.
There are three additional horizons to be flow tested in mou 1 which were not previously reported.
a) tgb5 , 967 to 991 , comprising of two horizons.
b) new zone at 1035
c) top hoot 1397 to 1400 , one horizon.
So we have more zones to flow than previously reported, and two of the main reservoir sections can be correlated to gas zones in mou 3.
A lot of good news to look forward to.
Jimmy
Walkman
There is to be no coiled tubing unit, please see the rns extract below.
“ An alternative to a coiled tubing unit originally sourced out of Tunisia, which is required to run the Sandjet perforating tool, has been now been sourced in France by ECS. This will enable the testing programme to commence at the earliest possible opportunity in September. Shipping logistics from Tunisia, due to competition for vessel cargo space, created uncertainty regarding the exact scheduling of commencement of field operations.”
Jimmy
Art 123,
Thank you for your comments as it’s always good to get other opinions. However, I disagree with your analysis and conclusions for the following reasons.
1. Mou 1 has been reported by the recent cpr as having 100% geological chance of success. In addition the reservoir sands encountered there were structurally deeper than mou 3 or mou 4 and hence is better placed to identify a gas water contact or higher water cut than shallower wells.note mou 1 gas in the tgb2 reservoir was overpressurised and hence not comparable to sound energy.
2. Predator previously advised that the thick reservoir section in mou 3 can be traced on seismic as being correlated to an equivalent sand at mou 1. Makes sense to get pressure and flow test data from the deepest part of the structure first, which will then inform flow testing at mou 3.
3. The choice of sandjet as the perforation tool over standard explosives was not so much based on cost, as another poster noted the all in costs are not that different., but rather to do with fact that the main reservoir in mou 1 is an unconsolidated sand reservoir , which could potentially be damaged by standard explosive charges. In addition the sandjet process gets deeper reservoir penetration with wider pore space.
I agree with you that mou 1 should have been tested a long time ago, and that seems an error. However, by flow testing mou 1 first it may help to calibrate the logs for testing at mou 3.
As a separate matter, mou 1 also happens to be nearest the main gas pipeline which could indicate where the central processing plant will be located.
I have not correlated the testing depth intervals to the gas zones at mou 3 , which should be interesting.
Looking forward to test results and a debt financed cng development as advised to day.
Pg is an exploration it’s and just wants to drill, but high priority needs to be given to getting to positive cashflow with cng that will finance follow up wells.
Jimmy
Jalisco,
The chance of success for mou 2 and 3 are irrelevant in the cpr, because that was before gas was subsequently found in mou 3 and mou4, mou 2 was suspend above its target.
It’s important that you read the rns also.
Jimmy
Good idea Louis, everybody should read the cpr.
Page 83 reports that the geological chance of success of sufficient gas flows from well mou 1 for a cng pilot plant is 100% and a commercial chance of success of 75%.
Since the cpr, mou 3 and mou 4 wells were drilled Pdr announced a further 140 meters of gas reservoirs to be flow tested.
Jimmy
Gooner,
The issue is communication,
If dealing with a super major, it can take 6 months plus to complete legals and that’s after the heads of terms agreed, and there were over 40 visits to the data room. They probably got the timescale wrong, but they should admit this and complete asap.
Jimmy
Ianfer,
Chariot communication on its corporate progress is awfull.
There needs to a business update corporate presentation once every quarter.
Need to get production cashflow asap and stop the equity dilution.
Jimmy
We know that mou 4 encountered 2 meters of 19.9% porosity with elevated gas readings in a structure that is reported to be 127 km2 in size.
The early pre drill estimates are described on page 12 at.
https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2021/09/29105657/Webinar-Presentation-website-Version-28092021-Corrections-15.40pm.pdf
What is worth noting is that the expected thickness of the carbonate reservoir is 224 meters.
The mou 4 drill location was focused on the mou fan reservoir and was intended to intersect the carbonate reservoir down dip at the edge of the structure as illustrated on page 13 at
https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/05/Proactive-Presentation-18-May-2023-FINAL.pdf
It seems like the lower carbonate reservoir was intersected and given that only 2 meters of reservoir were gas bearing it looks like a gas water contact was encountered.
This is supported by the fox Davies report which reduced the prospect size to 125km2.
So the question that remains is how thick is the carbonate reservoir up dip of the mou 4 location and what will the porosity be like updip.
The seismic is indicating 224 meters.
Geologically, the carbonates have undergone substantial elevation and certainly shallower than the carbonates at txf 1 well, the relative shallow depth increases the likelihood that high porosity is widespread as a consequence of carbonate reef exposure to air which results in increased weathering and porosity. This has then been subject to both 6 periods of tectonic compression and two periods of inversion which are likely to induce widespread fracturing, hence the carbonate porosity of 19.9% compared to txf 1 of 8% .
The presence of 2 meters of gas downdip in the structure has validated the top seal.
If there is 224 meters of high porosity carbonates updip in a prospect size of 125 km2 then we are looking at a potential gas volumes of circa 4-5 tcf.
In my opinion, this scenario would explain the cryptic enthusiasm of GRH.
JIMMY
Nigel,
Horizontal wells usually required for reservoirs with low porosity and permeability, no evidence of that in recent wells.
Drilling is very low cost , so I am not worried about multiple wells, the industry expert suggested flow rates in excess of 100 mmcf per day, yet full scale cng only requires 34 mmcf per day.
Don’t understand your logic Nigel.
Jimmy