Member Info for Jimmy23

Dave, bid offer spread at 15% so it’s not high volume, don’t read too much into such trading.

Jimmy

Hi bold.

The rns of 6th June has the following information you were asking about.

1. Tgb 6 and ma sands expected to flow at 10 to 20 mmcf per day from mou3

2. Tgb 4 sands expected to allow for increase in scaling of cng to 50 mmcf per day. That would suggest 30 to 40 mmcf per day , but that could be from a future producer well also, so my estimate is 15 to 20 mmcf per day.

3. The rns stated that drilling of mou5 would start as soon as possible after the new licence period started , which it has started and that all short term operations are funded. However, I cannot see them drilling mou5 till mou4 is flow tested in the jurrasic. Even if mou5 is funded my view is pg will equity fundraise beforehand and after flow test results.

Jimmy

Sefton,

There is a 15% difference between the bid and offer price on very low volumes, the share price declines if someone sells a very small amount of shares.

I don’t think you can attribute any conspiracy to such actions just low volume and a lack of news.

Jimmy

AV,

Your comments to Dave at13.29 are completely uncalled for and are an abuse of this forum.

Yes, there are those who have extreme enthusiasm for this share, whereas I am waiting on the evidence, that’s not to say that 6tcf is going to be discovered at mou5 , just that it needs derisking by flow testing of mou 4 and then drill up dip into proven gas.

I would be surprised if pg does not fundraise ahead of mou 5 , and if it’s successful then the extra dilution does not matter.

We can have differences of opinion , but let’s be civil. I know, because I have been called a paid de ramper and part of a campaign to lower the share price, when in fact I just wanted pg to do what he said he would do in a timely manner.

Everything depends on the flow test results, let’s patiently wait.

Jimmy

Yes, should spud next couple of days. First is the pilot hole drill to the north flank as this is likely to be a slim hole my guess is two weeks to target and a week of logging and samples then announcement, followed by drilling anchois east say three weeks and a further two weeks for flow testing, then results. Obviously not sure how long each flow test will be so it could be a little shorter or longer.

J

Stena forth due to arrive at anchois at 03.00 to morrow morning.

See.

https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9428932

Jimmy

One of the reasons that I like mou 5 is because mou 4 found a very thick top seal above the early jurrasic carbonates, which is important if gas is to be retained during two periods of basin inversion. Because there are only six seismic lines over such a huge area there is a risk that the top seal may not be as thick over all of the structure.

However, a successful flow test of the 2 meters at the bottom of the structure would effectively de risk the top seal risk up dip for the rest of the structure .

Got to flow test to proove it , looking forward to positive results.

Jimmy

Harry,

I suggest you read the chariot presentations and updates.

They have already costed an increase in daily production from 105 mmcf per day to 150 mmcf per day at a 5% cost increase , so the design work is done.

J

Harry,

It’s common practice for seperate reservoir completions to occur in wells offshore, flow rate data for each reservoir will allow the completion design to be completed. The operator, energean has plenty of experience in deep water, not the problem you describe.

J

Marland.

The ais indicator on vesselfinder still shows it at Las Palmas . Hopefully not for much longer.

J

Hi fernan.

We know that each of the gas reservoir sands has gas in them , however based on the schematic presented by chariot it appears as if each sand package has its own gas water contact which would indicate that each reservoir group of sands is independant of each other.

We do not know the reservoir pressures of each sand and it’s possible that over geological time that the reservoir pressures in each reservoir equalised, however it’s also possible that reservoirs have different pressure regimes and if so they will need to be completed seperately for production. The purpose of the flow testing of each reservoir sand is to establish the production pressures and how best to complete for production.

This is important, because if a deep reservoir has a high pressure it would effectively hold back production from a shallow reservoir and not maximise daily production if they were to have co mingled production.

Accordingly, it’s highly unlikely that a proven gas reservoir which are particularly thick, will not flow.

Jimmy

Seabright.

Thank you for clarifying.

The mou 4 jurrasic flow tests will hopefully provide additional information on not just the permeability of the carbonates but hopefully whether it’s at or close to a gas water contact or a gas / oil contact which is still a possibility.

However, if it’s at a gas oil contact , the structure spill point also appears to be nearby so the large oil accumulation potential may be in another prospect.

J

Seabright.

Predator announced that the gas in the mou fan and upper sands was biogenic.

J

Brv.

I am invested in both chariot and predator and both have failed to achieve production cashflow which I believe is critical to achieve shareholder value.

Both have near term cashflow opportunities and elephant size prospects.

Predator also gave timelines for cng production cashflow which long been missed, I hope both companies focus on achieving production cashflow asap.

Chariots timelines were missed due to a longer farm out process which occurs for large projects offshore whereas predators were for licensing and equipment supply issues which other companies onshore morocco do not seem to have.

Here hoping for good flow test results which investors can focus on then rathar than conspiracy theories without any foundation.

J

Foot and mouth.

Perhaps GRH could explain why the independant expert rated the mou 5 prospect at 12% chance of success and predator at over 50% as predator have not explained the difference.

If the scale of the prize referenced by GRH is 12% versus over 50% chance of success per predator it puts the opportunity into perspective.

Jimmy

Foot and mouth.

Most days there are more comments on this site than there are trades, so to think that a comment on this site that’s critical of the delays or communication by predator is part of a grand conspiracy to undermine predator is far fetched.

With regard to competitors in morroco conspiring against predator is far fetched in my opinion as competitors can export surplus gas to Europe where there is plenty of demand.

Let’s focus on getting a good flow test result and getting into production cashflow so predator are in a stronger negotiating position whatever the secret plan that some believe predator have but won’t tell shareholders.

Jimmy

Keith,

There are some here that believe in conspiracy theories to explain the delay in sand jet perforation of mou 1 3 and 4 which is now occurring three years after the drilling of mou 1.i don’t.

I invested on the basis of the mou 1 well results and a plan which I believed to be good to use nuetech log analysis combined with sand jet perforation to flow test and henceinto cng production asap.

Time is money and for a pre revenue company that means dilution so in my opinion it’s appropriate to comment when time lines are not met particularly when it’s measured in years of delay.

I do like the mou 5 project, and I do not understand why the independent expert assigns only a 12% chance of success whereas predator assigned a more than 50% chance of success. Discussing that major difference is appropriate in my opinion and I suggest that it might have been better for predator to explain the reasons for the difference.

Let’s hope good sand jet perforation and flow test results will allow us all to focus predators plans for cng production and use the cashflow to drill out the areas potential.

With regard to getting regulatory consents and securing equipment other companies do not seem to have the same problems in Morocco, perhaps they use local employees who understand the culture and speak the language.

Jimmy

Dealbreaker,

I agree that chariots focus should have been on getting to cashflow breakeven very much earlier.

Hopefully that will now be the focus.

Jimmy

If the irrational exuberance club can’t play the ball, they play the man.

Shame.

Wacky,

Thank you for posting that reference for mou1 results presentation.

I can see the increase in mud weight used as it drilled through the thin fan sands, but did not see a reference to the overpressurized reservoir as posted for the shallow gas sands in mou 3, see

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PRD/interim-drilling-update-mou-3-a1ahzbsju1a49lu.html

Perhaps you could guide me to the reference

Thank you.

Jimmy