Member Info for Jimmy23

Hi Brv,

Thanks for your note.i did not include the Silurian source rocks because I got the impression from the itr that they were likely to be present in only part of the licence,so I dismissed that as being insufiecient for the accumulation of giant gas fields.

Jimmy

I seem to recall pg stating something like the source rocks could generate 7tcf of gas.

While that’s great it’s the volume of gas that’s trapped that counts, and if that trapping requires stratigraphic traps then it will require either lots of wells or a lot of 3D seismic.

All the more reason to finance such a program from cng production cashflow. Just got to flow test by sand jet first, it will happen some year.

Jimmy

I believe GRH is genuine in his beliefs that prd has potential to find giant gas/oil accumulations at guercif. I understand that he has a large databank of information not available to ordinary investors. As GRH has a tendency to be cryptic I have been trying to figure out where such giant and supergiant fields could be located in predators moroccon acreage.

Firstly, if we look at the independent technical report none of the prospects listed indicate giant gas field accumulations even at the p10 probability .

So where could these giant accumulations be.?

For a start we know that from a regional perspective we have a thermogenic and biogenic source rocks, there are multiple deep seated faults to help migrate the gas to reservoirs and that there are good top seal rocks which appear highly effective as sealing rocks and may provide stratigraphic closure for some Miocene reservoirs.

So that leaves reservoir thickness and structure as the key risks.

The Miocene reservoirs are typically 10 to 50 meters thick, still very valuable,if they flow test, but unlikely to be result in giant gas fields at geurcif, potentially in the wider licence area but would need a huge amount of drilling to confirm without 3 d seismic.

That leaves the Jurassic carbonates as another potential for large accumulations, while the carbonate thickness has been reported at circa 240 meters the ITR has indicated reservoir quality of carbonates at 20 to 50 meters, nice accumulations but not super giant. Even if the reservoir is 240 meters of good reservoir it gets to a few tcf , which is very nice but not a giant accumulation.

There has been mention of drilling mou 5 through the jurrasic and into the Triassic. However, the triassic reservoir would need to sourced from jurrassic source rocks above it. It’s possible migration could occur across faults if the source is juxtaposed across faults to the jurrasic reservoir, but this gets little support in the Itr and is certainly higher risk, but might be worth a look if drilling jurrasic anyhow.

Perhaps GRH might enlighten us a little more.

Jimmy

Surfit,

I agree with you that the market is valuing chariot as highly speculative, although the facts are otherwise.

Drilling up dip from proven gas reservoirs with 3D seismic and seismic direct hydrocarbon indicators is very low risk, about 10-15%.

I also expect that anchois production volumes, validated by flow testing will justify an increase in anchois field gross production to 200 mmcf per day, now that generates huge production cashflow to chariot, with capex financed by energean.

A lot to look forward to as the market values near term cashflow.

Jimmy

Hi suresh.

Predator put out detailed economics for its cng project in morroco,and based on that capex for 20 mmcf per day for cng is $33 million, payback in less than 6 months.

My understanding is that chariots partner vivo for retail sales in Morocco will likely put up the funds and be repaid from production cashflow.

Jimmy

I just can’t see where there is enough reservoirs to trap a supergiant gas field.

Is GRH thinking of the Triassic ?

Jimmy

Hi B.

Yes, onhym will have to pay 25% of all expenditure once a concession production licence is issued.

J

Note. The $89 million per year is for 100% interest in the cng field development, so chariot net is 75%

Hi o and w.

Predator numbers for cng net revenue would result in chariot generating $89 million per year from 20 mmcf per day cng production and sale.

I don’t expect chariot to have difficulties with perforation and hopefully they use the correct mud to deal with glauconite in the deeper reservoir.

Jimmy

It’s the 20th February rns which is important

“ Mobilisation of the Sandjet crew and equipment will occur shortly after Petroleum Agreement Amendment #4 has been ratified and all necessary regulatory approvals for Sandjet rigless testing have been received. The time framework for the Phase 2 rigless testing programme will at that time be updated.”

Waiting on that update now.

Jimmy

Same deeper sand in both wells to be drilled.

J

The recently referenced 1tcf is for anchois offshore after drilling anchois east.

However, I also estimated some time ago 1tcf for the potential onshore of the secondary deeper target now called Navette by chariot.

The primary target onshore has been reported at 10.5 meters by SDX and chariot have reported it as similar to the B sand offshore.

Offshore we had nearly 190 meter of sand in anchois 2, in lnb 1 nearby onshore in loukos 3D seismic area they found 300 meters of gross sand reservoir with high gas readings , which if gas bearing up dip would be very exciting.

This extra 1tcf Navettevreservoir in the 3D seismic area is clearly higher risk, and it’s great it’s going to be drilled.

We might get a pleasant surprise.

Jimmy

KB.

I would add that uk oil valuations are now very much based on near term net revenue generation. So loukos is important as it will have a quick route to cashflow generation via the jv with vivo. This should sustain chariot till anchois is in production in 2-3 years.

I am expecting anchois east to be successfull including proving up the O sands, increasing gross reserves to 1tcf.

The cash generating capacity of loukos and anchois is substantial and will provide capacity for large dividend payments quickly. When the market recognises this then share price will move up quickly.

I have had to be much more patient than I expected all those years ago .

Jimmy

Hi Kingbilly.

I was excited about Namibia because I was convinced that oil source rocks were present. More than ten years later over 12b bbls of oil have been found. Not a good business model to wait that long for a discovery and chariot has suffered huge equity dilution as successive high impact exploration wells failed. The farm out model of financing for exploration did not work.

Till anchois.

The development of anchois is not dependant on equity financing, however, it likely that chariot will need equity to fund overheads if the loukos onshore drilling is not successful.

Hence the most likely reason for such a big discount in share price.

I like loukos, because they are using the same geological model that worked well offshore and which has been repeatedly proven onshore Morocco.

Renewables are a long payback project, but needs third party finance.

Hydrogen is currently uneconomical and needs a change in technology.

Jimmy

Kingbilly,

Actually, I am excited about chariots drilling in loukos as I believe it will rapidly lead to production cashflow and negate the equity dilution discount that the market applies to chariots valuation.

There is a reasonable chance that the deeper Navette reservoir is gas bearing also , that would be transformative, but its exploration risk. We will know soon enough.

Jimmy

Prd previously prioritised flow testing of mou fan in mou 1 and 3 which would then facilitate a production concession licence. They also suggested testing of the very shallow unlogged reservoir in mou 3.

Interestingly, the last announced flow testing did not include the 50 meters of shallow reservoir in mou 4, yet it’s recently referenced as gas bearing, so who knows if it will be tested.

With regard to the mou 4 Jurassic 2 meters of likely gas, I would flow test it, because if it did not flow I would not drill mou 5 updip.

Jimmy

Wrong company posting.

I have re read the mou 4 rns

“ As previously announced the culmination of the Jurassic carbonate target lies 2.6 kilometres to the southeast of the MOU-4 well location and significantly higher than at the MOU-4 well location. Therefore a positive rigless testing result in this zone would help to de-risk the larger Jurassic structural closure in respect of reservoir development and migration of gas. These were two of the most significant pre-drill exploration risks.”

A flow test would validate the gas, which nuetech reported as likely, not certain, and would hopefully establish the gas water contact. Possibility of a gas condensate contact which would be interesting.

Jimmy

The mou 4 rns stated.

“ As previously announced the culmination of the Jurassic carbonate target lies 2.6 kilometres to the southeast of the MOU-4 well location and significantly higher than at the MOU-4 well location. Therefore a positive rigless testing result in this zone would help to de-risk the larger Jurassic structural closure in respect of reservoir development and migration of gas. These were two of the most significant pre-drill exploration risks.”

A flow test would validate the gas presence. If not present save the cost of drilling mou 5.

In addition, a flow test may establish either a gas water contact or a more unlikely gas condensate contact.

Jimmy

Thanks Keith.

Hopefully a good flow test will result in a re rating of the share price.

I hope a long flow test occurs sufficient to prove gas below the structural spill point and hence help to proove a stratigraphic trap closure.

Jimmy