Member Info for Jimmy23

Norviking.

Chariot had previously identified a very large stratigraphic trap for natural to the west of its block 2714 .

In light of the nearby oil discoveries it might now be considered viable as an oil target

The licence is held by namcor and chariot were to assist in farming out in exchange for a right to be granted 10% after a well had been drilled by a new party.

Perhaps someone in chariot could advise further.

Jimmy

Suresh,

Chariot have a residual back in rights for 10% to block 2714 in Namibia, which is adjacent and contiguous to galps, giant oil discovery.

Jimmy

Seabright.

You have provided a good summary of the jurrasic prospect, and indeed I do like the prospect particularly as two periods of basin inversion are likely to help with fracture porosity. However, my concern is if prd are going to prioritise drilling the carbonate prospect which has an independent technical report chance of success at 12% or proceed first to sandjet perforation and flow testing, particularly as the total gas bearing reservoirs established to date are circa 175 meters in mou 1,2,3 and 4 which is likely to be greater than the porous reservoirs in mou 5 .

Perhaps I am missing something .

Jimmy

Hi smartbeds.

I have answered that questions previously, but will repeat.

I am not Jimmy Lea and I am not connected to chariot in any way, directly or indirectly.

In addition, I confirm I have no communication with chariot or its management or directors.

Yet some continue to imply otherwise.

Must be trump supporters.

Jimmy

Ford.,Hbob.

My only agenda is to see a higher share price, which I expect to occur from flow testing from sand jet perforation.

I invested in prd, because I believed pg when said he was going to perforate by sand jet and progress to cng to generate cash, still patiently waiting.

With regard to 3D , you may of course disregard my views, but it’s harder to disregard the requirements of onhym, who require 3D in the second stage of the licence, then again perhaps you know more about the licence than onhym.

Jimmy

Porters,

If I knew what porters technical points were I could address them, just don’t know if or what he disagrees with.

J

Keith.

Mou 1 and 3 are each located in a three way dip anticline against a fault seal. Yes the mou fan reservoir is reported to be overpressurized.

To achieve the higher volume of prospective resources, the reservoirs will also need to be sealed by a stratigraphic trap and widespread and effective top seals are required for that. The results of mou 4 indicate there may be a stratigraphic closure at that location.

However closure to west needs to be proven, either through more wells or 3D seismic which is a requirement of the next stage of the licence.

Agreed , priority has to be to be focused on sand jet perforation .

Jurrasic prospect will likely require either lots of drilling or 3D to proove widespread good reservoirs.

Again, priority is get to cashflow to fund this.

Jimmy

Hi surfit.

My answers to your comments as follows.

1. the small amount of cash paid out to aquire i.e, the VERY limited FREE carry: instead we have we have sold for finance ( see 2).

Answer. The initial payment was $10million, but further lump sum payments of $15 million in cash and $50 million of a lone note or 20000 enog shares. Plus the financing of the capex development plus the financing of next well and seismic plus 7% royalty on enog production, market has certainly not grasped that yet.

2. possibley the partner, namely the debt presently carried and the ability to obtain finance...this MAY be a factor?????? Comments???

The partner is uk listed, strong cashflow and balance sheet. The partner has more than enough capability to fund the development including chariots share.

3. potential risk on onshore not being commercial viable I.e.the drilling is to confirm.

Yes, until it’s drilled there is a risk, but drilling Avo anomalies in this basin has an 85% success rate. Drilling up dip from a known discovery mapped with 3D seismic is very low risk indeed, as demonstrated by chariot at anchois 2.

4. Finance required to fund to onshore sale.

Yes, finance required. My understanding is the onshore retail customer avivo, wil provide such funding. In addition there is an opportunity to use spare capacity in the SDX pipeline which they are keen to use.

5. To recive the 15m this requires addtional OFFshore drill with confirmed flow rates (correct/incorrect?).

The additional $15 million is payable on final investment decision , the forthcoming well will include flow testing of multiple reservoirs in order to finalise the well completion design, one does not want a deeper high pressure gas impeding a lower pressure shallower gas horizon, which if confirmed would require separate production tubing.

6. Management realisation (RNS) that the have to sell or finance/ understand revenue return on the South African "renewables" folly.

Certainly the market is giving little to no value for that investment, best if it’s spun out.

7. Hydrogen venture costs/return/ finance.

This is a long term project that costs very little at the moment. Plans to build a small pilot plant are low cost.

8. ONshore success REQUIRED to keep the company liquid to get to OFFshore production.

Given the fact that the anchois 3 well will be drilled in august, I expect FID by q2 next year, which in turn will result in further farm out cash to chariot. Will most likely coincide with start of onshore production.

Just my views.

The key point about chariots farm out is that it effectively removes equity dilution risk which holds back mostjunior explorer valuations.

Jimmy

It’s certainly good to know there are deep fault systems which allow gas migration.

As pg explained previously, the wire line logs required specialist interpretation due to the high mud weights used during drilling, invade the reservoirs near the well bore. While nuetech are experts in interpreting the logs in these circumstances, it’s still an interpretation that requires validation. For this reason, it was most reassuring for prd to advise the market that gas samples had been recovered from mou 3 and mou4, although why it took so long to report is not understood, as it’s the first validation of actual gas being recovered from reservoirs.

While GRH is most enthusiastic about the gas volumes generated , it’s the starting point, I am more interested in the top seal of shales and blue marls as it these rocks which seal the gas in place in most locations. This is particularly important because the basin went through two periods of inversion which can cause lesser top seals to crack and for gas to migrate to surface.

In addition, the top seal rocks may also act as a lateral seal for a stratigraphic trap, which looks likely for the mou fan reservoir. However, without 3D seismic, this will require validation by drilling. Which is why it’s so important to flow test, get into cng production and use the cashflow to drill out the area, without diluting shareholders. That’s why I am invested, so very keen to see flow testing by sand jet as a priority.

Jimmy

Mr plow

There is potential in the deeper reservoir to be drilled by chariot, however, chariot have not provided a prospective resource so I roughly calculated a 1tcf potential, got to be drilled to be proven though.

However, the previous welllnb1 found 300 meters of reservoir with high gas shows, but could not log the well due to adverse hole conditions.

The reason the forthcoming onshore wells are interesting is that they will be deepened to evaluate that reservoir section.

Offshore at anchois, thin shale sequences and blue marl intersections provide an excellent intra reservoir seal and I expect these to be present onshore also, so we have to drill to prove it.

The shallower reservoir onshore has been reported by SDX previously at 10.5 meters in the 3D area, so two wells could produce 21 mmcf per day, higher than chariots estimate, but in line with average flow rates per meter in the rharb basin. At $12an mcf, that’s a nice cash producer.

Jimmy

Hi OaW.

My calculation of the 1tcf potential was not based on continuity of the deeper reservoir between prospects, but based on the same prospect area as the shallow low risk reservoirs, but at a reservoir thickness of 150 meters, being 50% of what was found previously in lnb1.

Good question about the challenges of drilling the deeper lnb 1 reservoir, chariot have a very experienced drilling team and I am sure they will be planning to deal with those issues encountered by predator at mou 2 and by SDX on deep lnb1.

Jimmy

Good evening OaW.

There are two targets in the forthcoming loukos wells.

Both reservoir targets were previously intersected by SDX in previous wells .

The shallower target intersected a gas water contact and was relatively thin reservoirs, the deeper prospect interesected a gross reservoir of 300 meters with strong gas shows , but could not be wire line logged due to reservoir conditions.

Because these reservoirs are the same age as the offshore anchois b sands , chariot were able to reprocess he 3D seismic and identify the 100 bcf prospects up dip from the lnb 1 well drilled by SDX.

SDX, had not reprocessed the seismic and hence missed the opportunity for follow up drilling.

The 1tcf prospect opportunity for the area only applies if the deeper reservoir found in lnb 1 is gas bearing up dip, and this deeper reservoir has been identified in the new seismic up dip and will be drilled by each of the forthcoming 2wells

Because chariot have such a great database for these reservoirs from offshore it allows them to identify such opportunities.

I feel very confident gas will be found , and there is a reasonable chance for gas in the deeper reservoir.

Jimmy

GRH,

Suggest you read Keith comments re 3D for the Jurassic prospect.

For the messinian reservoirs, seismic resolution does not pick up 1meter reservoirs and 2D seismic is no good for stratigraphic traps, both relevant. You can of course drill as an alternative and if so it’s better to do so production cashflow rather than dilute.

But no point drilling unless you flow test onshore where log interpretations require flow test validation.

Jimmy

Keith, Brv.

You have both quoted really high numbers for the long term potential of the Jurassic prospect, we have drilled the prospect, found gas and high porosity reservoir, yet here we are at only a fraction at a market capitalisation at a fraction of the potential that you have both mentioned. Even if we drill up dip and find gas you have both indicated it will take a large number of appraisal wells, so there will be further uncertainty impacting t he market valuation.

It’s my view that markets are not valuing geological potential but near term cashflow opportunities .

Pg is an explorationist and like# to drill, which is fine, but it’s best done from production cashflow in my view.

Jimmy

Keith,

I like the mou 5 prospect also and have stated that the 12% chance of success is feels too low.

However, I believe the market has changed in recent years and a very much higher value is given to near term production opportunities over geological potential.

The Jurassic potential has been proven by mou 4, with the gas water contact most likely found so we know it’s gas updip, but do not know the reservoir conditions both updip and through out the prospect, which you acknowledge will take lots of drilling by others.

My fear is that Pg would rathar drill high risk wells than flow test by sand jet , after nearly three years from mou 1 it’s still to happen and I believe the biggest increase in value is from good flow testing, that in turn opens up a wide range of financing options to get to production cashflow , with mini ima l dilution.

I fear if we drill mou 5 we will be going into more dilution and it’s high risk well,so best delayed in my view.

The reason I invested pre mou 2 was that there was a clear plan to get to production cashflow as a priority and after three wells now there is more drill plans which I fear may put back production. That’s my concern , which I believe is justified based on past performance.

Jimmy

Harry Christa.

I responded to the question if there was a conflict between chariot and predator.

If you wish to introduce additional facts, please do so for comment by others.

Surplus gas generated in Morocco can easily be sold in Spain.

Jimmy

Hi ford,

Good points.

Chariots offshore anchois field is likely to be used for power generation, which requires a high level of certainty of long term gas flow and gas which is highly processed for international pipeline specifications.

Predator are going for cng, so it does not incur the high cost of processing for pipelines.also because it does not have 3D seismic its long term supply is not as assured without lots more production wells.

So in my opinion, no conflict between chariots offshore and predator onshore.

Jimmy

The recent financial statement updates included a comment that 58 meters of shallow m1 reservoir in mou 4 had now been recognised as gas bearing by nuetech. The independent technical report did not include such a reference . In addition mou 2 is now reported to have encountered 100 meters of variable quality reservoir in the mou fan reservoir, but no confirmation if they are gas bearing or not.

In the mou fan reservoir we now have 21 meters in mou 4, 50.5 meters in mou 3, 100 meters in mou2, 12 meters in mou 1, total 183.5 meters.

The new A sand has 11 meters in mou 3.

The new m1 reservoir in mou 4has 58 meters.

The ma tgb 6 reservoirs in mou 1 are 10 meters and 11 meters in mou 3 and reported as in reservoir communication.

Total reservoirs requiring flow testing approx 273 meters of potentially gas bearing reservoirs.

I believe the market will seriously re rate predator if it successfully flow tests these reservoir that have a potential to flow a combined 273 mmcf per day.

To me this is the low risk strategy to increase market cap , compared to follow up drilling of 2 meters of jurrasic carbonates that will require 3D seismic to evaluate.

Jimmy

No I am not Jimmy Lea.

I am invested in both chariot and predator and do not see any conflict in doing so.

I do not believe the conspiracy theories about chariot trying to undermine predator.

There is enough gas demand in morroco for both companies to be very successful.

Looking forward to chariots imminent drilling of low risk loukos prospects, and eventually flow testing from predator.

Jimmy

This is great news that the seller has been taken out, and it seems like we have a new significant shareholder which must be announced within a few days.

The second well option for the lixus licence is intriguing. My guess is that chariot previously announced that the development plan for anchois was designed to add in additional gas production from around anchois.

The anchois east well will test the deeper O sands on each side of the north fault, so my guess is that if these are successfull they would drill anchois west and test the deeper O sands below it and possibly also test a potential gas accumulation in the pliescene above anchois west.

The chances of success for these wells is very high indeed, and drilling of these wells would then allow the pipeline to shore to be sized for 200 mmcf per day, now that generates a hell of a lot of cash. Expect dividends from that cashflow.

The loukos drilling onshore should be starting in a few weeks , we could get a very nice surprise in the deeper secondary target.

Jimmy