Member Info for Jimmy23

Keith.

If mou 4 did flow water instead of gas, it would calibrate the logs ahead of drilling mou5, as previously announced by predator. In addition the water pressure data would assist in determining a gas water contact, which is also very useful , as well as potentially derisking mou5 and raising funds at a very much higher price than recent equity dilutions.

J

If the mou5 structure was fill to spill, then why not flow test the mou 4 carbonates, as previously planned by predator , it would derisk mou5 at a lower cost than a new well .

The fact that predator continue to dilute investors and invest in Trinidad rather than securing a gas flow in morroco says a lot to me.

J

Nordell.

The priority for chariot must be to get into positive production cashflow asap, cut overheads and costs and have a portfolio of assets that are funded by farm outs, such farm outs are obviously jam tomorrow.

J

I believe chariot are applying for blocks 2714a and b in Namibia, which they previously held and shot a huge amount of 3D seismic and drilled the K1 which proved world class source rocks but such source rocks were over mature for hydrocarbons.

The recent giant discoveries in Namibia orange basin were in deeper water where the overburden above the source rocks reduced and hence the source rocks were mature for oil.

Exploration drilling to date has had a 75% success rate due to the fact that 3D seismic had direct carbon indicators , I believe Avo, validated by drilling which encountered turbidite reservoirs in vast stratigraphic traps. The key to the stratigraphic traps are very thick and laterally continuous top seals which trap the oil in stratigraphic traps.

This top seal was proven by chariot in its k1 well as shown on page 11 of the presentation at

https://chariotenergygroup.com/app/uploads/2021/08/Proactive_Investors_Presentation.pdf

Chariot have reported that the block they are to acquire has multiple billion barrel prospects. We do not know if these are already covered by chariots vast 3 d seismic in the north and west of block 2714a or if they require 3D seismic in the south of block 2714B which is contiguous to the blocks where giant oil discoveries have been made.

Given the strong relationship with Total and their success in the orange basin, they would be a prime candidate for a farm out. However, Petrobas, former partners in the block with chariot are also reported to be interested in returning to Namibia.

Chariot have strong links to Namibia and I think can claim credit for leading the way for the follow on discoveries in Namibia. Hopefully Ap relationships are strong in the country and will result in the grant of the licence in the next number of weeks.

Jimmy

Surety.

Great data on the Venus discovery and its regional setting at

https://impactoilandgas.com/assets/namibia-2912-2913b/

J

Hi surety,

Will have a look to morrow and revert

J

Keith.

You stated.

“ I agree that perforating and flow testing this interval, if successful, would move MOU-5 up to 100% gcos.”

I agree, and just think about the share price would have been for the last two placing.

If mou4 carbonates did not flow it would also calibrate the wireline logs for mou5.

A cost worth taking, but it was not considered a priority, instead drill a 12% chance of success at a very much higher cost.

J

We were told that mou3 encountered gas at very high gas pressure, but no gas has flowed after two perforations attempts, so this must be classed as high risk.

The A sands in mou3 encountered very high pressure also, but no wire line logs validated , I suspect to save money.

Now the a sands are to be redrilled at a cost of £1.5 million, and resulting in more equity dilution.

Short term thinking in a long term project is costly for shareholders.

J

When mou4 was drilled and encountered 2 meters of high gas saturation gas in high porosity reservoir, I invested further, and was encouraged by the June rns that flow testing of this gas would occur, thereby validating the discovery and calibrating the wireline logs for mou5.

That would have substantially de risked mou 5 and in my opinion funding could have occurred at very much higher prices than the last two placing. The flow testing of mou4 would have substantially de risked the giant prospect .

Alas, once again predator did not do what they said they would do , and it seems to me that predator now view the mou4 carbonate discovery as very high risk , hence no revision to the 12% chance of success.

J

More Bait and Switch from predator.

I am now expecting swabbing of mou3 to be delayed till after drilling of mou5 and mou6 and a few more placings.

I invested after mou1 and thankfully offloaded most of my shares at a small profit, having waited a long time for gas to flow.

My interpretation of the current strategy is that the main mou fan reservoir targets are considered high risk by predator in favour of the high impact high risk mou5 . The reason being that after two attempts at flow testing no gas has flowed, and with thin reservoirs below seismic resolution intra reservoirs faults cannot be seen, with basin inversion there is compartmentalisation risk , resulting in logged gas which cannot sustain a flow rate due to compartmentalisation. Would like to be proven wrong, but the switch of focus to mou5 and ongoing operational delays and placing has indicated to me where predator see a better return in a high risk 12% chance at mou5.

Will wait till after mou5 drilled before considering investing again.

Jimmy

Good summary James.

This is why some shareholders are upset, can’t keep to its own roadmap.

J

Rosso.

Rns 6th June which stated.

“ A carbonate interval in MOU-4 has also been selected for possible perforating with Sandjet in order to calibrate the NuTech petrophysical log interpretation over this interval which is located at the extreme edge of the Jurassic structure to be tested by MOU-5.”

J

Inthego.

The reservoirs are relatively thin in a basin that’s undergone inversion, the independant experts reports have stated that the interpretation of the wireline logs is subject to validation by flow testing, which is yet to occur years after the first discovery at mou1.

The risk that I see is that basin inversion results in compartmentalisation, and that with thin sands there is restricted flow across faults that are below seismic resolution of individual thin sands. In these circumstances you might get a gas kick while drilling but fail to get a sustained flow rate. The only way to resolve the uncertainty is to flow test, so let’s see.

With regard to mou4 , I was very encouraged by the rns in august to flow test mou4 carbonates which would calibrate the wireline interpretation of the forthcoming mou5. Unfortunately that low risk and low cost option to de risk mou5 has now been dropped instead its drilling the higher cost and higher risk mou5.

Got to wait and see now.

J

In the go.

We know that some of the water in mou3 well came from the sand jet process and that the expected high pressure in the reservoirs was insufficient to bring such water to the surface. If low pressure had been expected I am sure they would have mobilized a down hole pump to remove such water at the time of the sand jet perforation, but they did not.

Paul confirmed that no gas flowed in mou3.

So the question remains is there enough gas to flow and what flow rate will be achieved from thin reservoirs at lower than expected pressures or has a gas water contact been encountered which explains the high water volumes which could not be brought to surface by the gas pressure.

We obviously have to wait to find out but predator obviously view mou3 as higher risk than mou5, and hence prioritising the use of shareholder funds.

In the go , time will tell , but there is more than one way to look at the facts presented by predator.

J

Madman.

It’s been several years since mou1 made its gas discovery, and after two attempts at perforation mou3 has not flowed and the A sand having encountered high pressure while drilling, was not wire line logged.

I can’t tell the future any better than you, but Predator has prioritised its view of the risks and decided to drill mou5 as its best bet.

Let’s see what happens.

J

I believe Paul clarified the chances of success at 12% to find the upper volume of possible recoverable gas at 5.7 tcf . He said the geological chance of success, that is to find some gas is approx 50%.

We know that the issue with carbonate reservoirs nearby has been poor porosity and it’s hoped that the shallower depth and proximity to faults might increase fracture porosity. The key issue to find out is are the fractures in communication to provide continuity of flow and what’s the lateral continuity of high fracture and higher porosity reservoirs. This will require a flow test, possibly an extended flow test . There are only 6 seismic lines over the prospect , so likely that 3D seismic will be required, a licence requirement for the next stage anyhow, followed by extensive appraisal drilling.

Based on past performance, I expect the mou 5 prospect to take many years to evaluate, possibly by way of farm out.pity that mou4 carbonates not flow tested to calibrate the wireline logs, so mou5 logs may be open to interpretation till mou 5 is validated by flow testing.

J

Jt 2017

In my opinion, the recent anchois 3 well result and the Rkz will result in a re mapping of the remaining prospects in each the licences, for different reasons.

Anchois 3 found gas in the B sands, no mention of gas in the A sand and the C, M and O sands were water bearing when they had expected to be gas bearing. The C, m and O sands were deeper than expected and hence were encountered below the gas water contact. The expected depths of reservoirs are first determined by mapping a prospect in seismic time and converting such time depths to meters based on the actual depths of the reservoir in anchois 1 and 2 wells compared to the seismic time depths at the well locations. All very good and standard practice, except it did not work in anchois 3 . The most likely reason in my view is that somewhere in the anchois 3 well the geology of some horizons was different than expected and such geology had a different actual thickness compared to its expected thickness from seismic. While the well results are clearly very disappointing, the information gained is very valuable as it will enable all the other prospects in the licence to be re evaluated on the basis of this new information. Some prospects may get better, and some worse. In addition, the anchois 3 well results will also result in the seismic spectral decomposition analysis which was used to identify gas water contacts, prior to drilling, to be recalibrated based on actual gas water contacts and and hence more accurately map other prospects in the licence .

I expect this work is underway, and hopefully near completion by both chariot and enog.

The higher gas prices in Europe are key to making the smaller anchois 3 well economical.

Jimmy

Mou 4 no longer shown as having penetrated the jurrasic carbonates and its gas. Might explain why the the chance of success is reported at 12%.

Garfie.

The farm out text you quoted is for onshore loukos and not anchois.

Jimmy

Hi jt.

The blocks are described as open, because the licence has not yet issued.

The galp discovery block of 10 billion bbls is adjacent to chariots block they applied for.

Jimmy