Member Info for Jimmy23

1 bcf = 1 million mcf.

See.

https://sciencing.com/convert-bcf-mcf-8684930.html

Jimmy

Sefton,

You are so very wrong.

J

Originally, licence extension no 4 was to the 4th June by which time prd expected to have completed the sand jet perforation. The actual rns announcing the licence extension did not state the new extension expiry date, so perhaps they have more time than was anticipated.

J

Here is malcy as an oil and gas advisor speaking at the Morocco oil and gas summit organised by onhym.

See.

https://www.energyvoice.com/promoted/534817/onhym-in-vr-to-host-the-3rd-morocco-oil-gas-summit/

J

Foot and mouth, Rob.

I am not the same person as the Bold , nor am I Jimmy Lee, or a paid troll.

I am an investor in both prd and chariot and do not see a conflict having investments in both companies.

I invested in prd, because I believed the plan to sand jet perforation and get to generate cng cashflow as described by prd. Still waiting after several fundraisers .

There may or may not be the giant gas accumulations that are suggested by some, the independent technical reports do not describe giant accumulations, which is fine , just don’t equity dilute to drill high risk exploration when there is a very good plan for cng.

Jimmy

Hi fernan.

The anchois trap geometry overall is an anticline, and there is a fault intersecting part of the anticline which separates anchois 2 area from anchois north. So technically it’s a separate compartment which needs to be drilled and proven. It should be very low risk, particularly as the forthcoming well comprises of two sections, the firs being effectively a redrill of anchois 2 which will also test an exploration compartment of the O sand, and a pilot hole to anchois north.

Jimmy

Hi fernan

The seismic amplitude anomaly Avo , can identify reservoirs which have gas in them , and historically this has been circa 80 % successfull I the rharb basin.

The Avo analysis can some times identify reservoirs with residual gas in them , which now appears to the cas e due to a thicker reservoir than expected which seems to have leaked across A fault which we now know did not seal.

Should not be a problem in afourvwaybdip antichline like dartois . Got to drill to prove it though.

Jimmy

I understand that malcy has previously acted as an advisor to Onhym so perhaps he has an insight into prd plans for flow testing

J

Suresh.

Chariot did not drill the deeper target as the shallow target encountered thicker sands than expected , as a result the sealing faults did not seal. So likely same problem for the deeper reservoir which was not tested.

The next prospect seems to be a four way dip anticline so will not have that problem, but might thicker reservoir, but got to drill to find out. Deep prospect below dartois called Navette, looks good but it’s classic exploration risk, but low cost to find out.

Jimmy

Older and wiser.

I don’t know the answer to your question as I can only go on published information.

My reading of the cross sections on the exploration cross section published on the video presentation is that gaufrette was a fault bound structure, which found a thicker reservoir than anticipated with a consequence that the faulting was not a sealing fault, that is sand against sand.

The dartois prospect appears to be more of a four way dip anticline so it’s not fault dependant, and if the sands are thicker than expected then that’s an added bonus. There is also a very nice thick anticline deeper target called Navette, not previously included in resource estimates but it looks big.

Chartiot re processed the seismic before drilling, but did not publish thecresults, hopefully the new seismic helps to derisk.

Chariot have probably saved $1.5 million drilling the well.

Fingers crossed for the next well, up dip from proven gas also.

Jimmy

Kat,

I got it right about anchois 2.

Let’s see how the second well goes.

Jimmy

Hi kb.

Yes, I was shocked by the result to day, been trying to figure it out. So far we know the reservoir was thicker than expected and we know the structure had both gas and water, so it looks like the geological trap failed at this location , possibly due to a fault not sealing properly due to a thicker reservoir than expected. I did not think they would make such a mistake with 3D seismic and good well control.

This well result has no impact on the offshore.

Jimmy

The lnb 1 well found 2.6 meters of gas reservoir down dip from the current well at a depth of around 1400 meters , so chariot are drilling up so should encounter the reservoir at around day 12 or 13.

If gas bearing they will drill down to test the 300 meters of reservoir found in the Lafkerena sequence which was also found in lnb1 with high gas readings but could not be logged due to hole conditions. That the higher risk upside.

Note the average thickness of the upper dahlia sequence is 10.5 meters but chariot have assumed 2.6 meters in its calculations.

So plenty of room for upside.

Jimmmy

Keith.

The reason there is a debate is precisely because sand jet perforation and flow testing has been fully funded on three occasions and has yet to happen, that should now be the priority.

With regard to flow testing the carbonates in mou 4 , if such flow testing unequivocally establishes the gas water contact that’s great.

The rns stated.

2 metres of likely gas reservoir with average porosity 19.9% (maximum 20.6%) and average gas saturation 56% (maximum 73%).”

If such intersection only flows water and no gas then the log interpretations need to be reconsidered .

Jimmy

Ford,

The company raised equity on three occasions to sand jet perforate and flow test with a view to cng production and it has yet to happen.

I remain concerned that more high risk drilling will occur before we proove what’s already found.

I like mou 5, but it would seem to me higher risk and ideally funded from cng production cashflow.

Jimmy

I previously suggested flow testing of mou 4 before mou 5 is drilled.

If the carbonates fail to flow gas, then don’t drill mou 5, so a cheapie risk.

In addition, a flow test may help establish a gas water or gas condensate contact , important .

The shallower reservoir horizon,was initial reported as being with elevated gas shows, but was then not listed as a priority for flow testing in the itr , then highlighted recently as gas bearing by nuetech.

The priority needs to be flow testing , which then strengthens prd negotiations with alleged 3rd party acquirers.

Jimmy

Chariot has some of the best acreage in the world with total Erin in Mauritania, to generate low cost electricity.

However , the cost of electroylsers still makes the cost of green hydrogen too expensive.

That’s about to change with a new technology published in nature that’s 98% efficient in generating hydrogen, see

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28953-x

Might be value in the hydrogen after all.

Jimmy

Thanks Keith and others for comments.

1. Turbidite sands lateral continuity is not linked to reservoir thickness. Hence importance of lateral continuity of top seal for stratigraphic closures which are higher risk.

2. Most wells in the area have multiple sand packages and only some are likely gas bearing, so something else is influencing gas trapping and even if turbidite are present they may not be gas bearing. Note the gas cloud indicating gas escape to the east of mou 2.

3. Minor intra reservoir faulting can probably be ignored for gas migration purposes overall geological time, however from a production point of view they are very important as they are choke points in the reservoir requiring a higher production well density, hence impact economics of producing from different production compartments.

I consider the top seal continuity as the key risk to be validated.

Jimmy

Hi bold.

Such an area of 160 x 50 with a thick reservoir in pressure communication through out would possibly need about 12 wells in my view of such a speculative area.

The reservoirs in the Miocene are relatively thin and are unlikely to be in pressure communication over such a large area, hence each compartment caused by minor faulting would require appraisal by two wells, at the top and bottom of the structure compartment. Not really a problem for low cost onshore wells, just need the production cashflow to finance it so shareholders don’t keep on getting diluted.

Jimmy

Hi Brv.

I think it’s important to look at the 7tcf volumes of gas generated in the context of potential recoverable gas.

For these scoping purposes it’s reasonable to assume 60% of such volumes get trapped in reservoirs, but then only a portion of such gas in place would be recoverable, at an early stage 60% would be used for sandstone reservoirs, which results in approx 2.5 tcf of gas , which is great, but will require lots of drilling and flow testing to proove. Hence the importance of the much delayed cng.

Jimmy