Member Info for Jimmy23

I believe prd should now revert to its previous plan and flow test carbonates in mou4 , thereby proving presence of gas both at mou 4 and updip, it would substantially improve the farm out terms for 3D and a new well to be drilled in a few years.

I believe that mou5 encountered its target carbonates reservoir below mou4 equivalent. It encountered 50 meters of carbonates instead of 247 meters and if these have high porosity it will make the farm out attractive.

Jimmy

The only gas bearing interval mentioned in the rns results of mou5 was the helium gas readings from the mud logs , which were above the jurrasic carbonates reservoirs,for which no gas shows were reported.

J

Bold,

The rns statement had no mention of gas , unlike the rns for each well mou 1 to 4.

In addition, the rns stated that the carbonates were much deeper than expected.

The mou 4 carbonates peaked at over 70% gas saturation and averaged 56% gas saturation, so it could be that the gas water contact was just below the mou4 well.

Pity that mou4 well was not flow tested as originally planned.

So it seems that mou5 did not find gas.

Jimmy

Nametrade.

I believe mou 4 carbonates are updip of the carbonates in mou5 , and this is why pg talks about updip potential from mou5 in a newly named prospect.

It will need 3D seismic because of the salt layer.

Jimmy

C357,

Mou 4 carbonates had an average gas saturation of 56% , if there was a gas oil contact point , then they would have reported 44% oil saturation in mou4, which did not occur.

Because the basin has been inverted twice, I suspect any traces of oil are just residual left behind after inversion .

J

C357.

My interpretation of the well results is that the carbonates were deeper than expected and hence below a possible gas water contact and potential remains updip, which requires 3D seismic due to presence of salt layer.

We do not know porosity of the carbonates or jurrasic sands which will be important.

Jimmy

I believe the reason mou5 is suspended is to possibly flow test helium after further technical analysis.

J

The basin has been inverted twice, so petrographic studies may identify residual oil shows after migration which will help to understand migration pathways.

Jimmy

The wire line logs were reported as excellent quality, so if oil was found they would have reported it.

Perhaps an oil based drilling mud was used and the mud pit might show a skim of a less dense fluid on the water.

J

Surety,

If there is a cost that’s going to be paid to withdraw from the licence, they would accrue for such cost and include it in the write off amount.

J

Agree. Enog licence coming back to chariot who will then farm out again.

Jimmy

There are a number of key statements in the rns.

1. Good quality logs achieved over jurrasic carbonates.

2. Data from the carbonates will be evaluated to determine the potential updip

3.” Data from MOU-5 will be analysed and incorporated in a new "Jurassic Project" that will focus on the core area of the Domerian structure to the northwest of MOU-5 structure”

4. No mention of gas shows in any reservoir, unlike mou wells 1 to 4.

5. The mou 5 well jurrasic carbonates were substantially deeper than expected.

All of these factors indicate to me that no commercial gas been found.

There is a possibility of gas updip which will be evaluated as part of the well cuttings studies . However, this new prospect updip will require 3 d seismic , farm out and further drilling.

It seems to me the jurrasic reservoirs were encountered below the mou4 reservoir , instead of above it as was intended, hence no mention of gas if it’s below the gas water contact.

Jimmy

Brv,

I appreciate this a very hard time for investors, the presence of salt is good news in a basin that has been through two periods of basin inversion, as it reduces the risk of gas leakage during inversion, so hence the focus of the rns on the potential updip.

Jimmy

Pareto.

The rns stated the wireline logs were good quality, so they know the result, and there were no gas shows reported as had occurred in the rns for mou 1 to 4.

I believe the delay in reporting the actual results is that they are buying time to assess the updip potential.however with only six seismic lines and the mapping complexity of salt, this needs 3D seismic.

Sorry, it looks like a dry hole to me or a very badly worded rns .

Jimmy

Brv.

The comments regarding mou1 are not relevant to mou 5 as the drilled geology is different.

The mou1 well encountered thin san reservoirs interbrdded with shales which makes log interpretation a challenge, particularly when reservoirs encountered high mud log gas readings when drilling the Miocene.

The mou5 well encountered 30 metered of jurrasic sand and 50 meters of carbonates, so good thick reservoirs , but no report of gas shows and wireline logs were reported as good quality.

The reservoirs were encountered substantially deeper than expected, and hence in my opinion below the likely gas water contact as suggested by mou4 well.

Jimmy

Timelines look great, highlandmatt.

As good as predators.

J

In the geo.

With regard to mou 3 water, if all that water was from the sand jetting then why did they not use a down hole pump to get rid of it and allow the well to flow naturally. They must have known how much water they were going to use.

With regard to mou 5, the well was originally expected to drill to 1200 meters with an estimated carbonates section of 247 meters.

The rns stated that the jurrasic was much deeper than prognosis, and 50 meters of carbonates.

We do not know what is meant by much deeper, but I would suggest it’s at least 100 meters, in which case the well was drilled to 1300 meters with the top of the Jurassic carbonates at 1250 meters, which is below the mou 4 jurrasic carbonates encountered at 1139, and mou 4 had a 50% gas saturation , so in a deeper well it’s likely to be a much lower gas saturation and in the water zone. That’s my reasoning for suggesting it’s water.

I have yet to see a case for a gas discovery.

Jimmy

Nigel.

You are correct they did not mention gas or water.

In my view, the key is that the well came in much deeper to prognosis.

J

On-The-Go.

The salt layer is important if it’s also present up dip , if there is gas up dip it could be sealed by the salt. But because salt distorts seismic time depth conversion, 3D seismic needed to establish where is updip in depth terms.

If there is gas in the structure, looks like mou5 drilled below the gas water contact.

J

Madman rob.

The mou5 well jurrasic carbonates came in much deeper than prognosis . There were no high gas pressure readings, no high gas saturation readings reported like at mou4.

We do not know the actual depth of the jurrasic carbonates, but as it’s much deeper than expected more likely to have encountered water.

Jimmy