Member Info for Jimmy23

The rns announcing the completion of drilling of mou 4 stated that a Jurassic carbonate intersection of 1139 to 1143 is to be tested, but did not say when.

Does anyone know the depth to which mou 4 was drilled as this was not stated, when it’s normal practice to say so. Why was it not stated?

Jimmy

I would be truly shocked if there was no flow tests results by year end, they have raised funds three times for flow testing.

Any farm out or third party offtake contracts will require a flow test , so I cannot see any reason not to flow test, particularly since they have the funds.

Jimmy

But when is flow test rns time, that’s the question. Can ROB answer that?

Jimmy

I am also anxiously waiting on flow test results, but pleased that Keith’s rns date has passed without an Rns, as otherwise punters would say he had inside knowledge.

J

My reading of the latest announcements is that the Irish state will lease its own floating storage gas unit to be moored in port. So mag mell looks like it’s finished.

However, that report did also note the benefit of having an Irish gas supply , so maybe the minister might renew the corrib licence which was applied for all those years ago.

J

Ibiza ,

Most of the imported gas is used for power generation , and Morocco is increasing is building more gas powered generators and is expected to convert a power station in kenitra from using fuel oil to gas also.

Plenty of local demand, nearly all of which is dependant on lng imported to Spain and piped to Morocco.

Jimmy

Louis,

Have you read page 35 of the experts report in the recent prospectus, do you disagree with it and if so why?

Jimmy

The mou 1 well has identified a new reservoir section for flow testing of 300 meters gross with a net interval of 45 meters with a low gas saturation % for testing.

This interval has not previously been included in contingent resources. However, a 45 meter interval flowing at the rharb basin average of 1.1 mmcf per meter per day , would produce nearly 50 mmcf per day,

See page 10, of

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/05/Proactive-Presentation-18-May-2023-FINAL.pdf

That would be a real barn burner as they say in the USA.

Jimmy

Thanks to Keith for his insight.

One factor that is very apparent from all of the recent rns announcements is that there is no definitive declaration that gas has indeed been found. There are mentions of reservoir intersections, elevated background gas readings but no statement saying x meters of gas bearing reservoirs were encountered . We know that no gas sampling of reservoirs has occurred which would validate electric log readings or calibrate the logs for reservoirs from which gas has been definitively sampled.

It’s understood that onhym will not allow a declaration of gas without definitive proof.

The explanation for the is situation is reported in the experts report in the recent prospectus, , page 35, which describes how a nearby well in the rharb basin with poor electric log quality readings and a 35 % gas saturation , usually considered to be water bearing, did in fact flow

gas.

The experts report endorses the nuetech log analysis.

Obviously , the definitive proof is the flow testing, and any commercial discussions with either offtake purchasers or farm in partners will benefit from a strong flow test.

The difficulty of log interpretation in these reservoirs is also validated by chariot results for anchois 2 well which initially announced 100 meters of net pay reservoir which was later upgraded several months later to 150 meters of net pay.

I will post later on a large reservoir section in mou 1 with gas saturations of 35% , not previously included in proven gas volumes.

This is important.

Jimmy

The issue for prd and its nomad and non executive directors is that by delaying the notification to shareholders of not flow testing, they allowed a false market to develop during that period.

Of course all will be forgiven if mou 3 flows strongly, if not they are on weak ground.

J

GRH,

I think you are probably correct.

However, do you know the water saturation levels in the mou 3 fan reservoir , and could that be the reason for a delay till Trinidad was secured.?

Paul has mentioned previously the difficulty of log interpretations in these reservoirs, which might read like water but are probably gas, just a possibility to explain the delay.

J

I have read the rns again and the explanation for not progressing to flow test is that prd wanted a gas sales memorandum of understanding in place regarding gas sales to be in place before they test.

Obviously, that’s an ideal situation, but from a negotiation point of view, a memorandum of understanding has no legal enforceability, and in any event gas sales will be subject development environmental impact reports and production licence.

This excuse is about as good as the fact that previously they could not test because they had not received an explosive transport licence for the perforation.

Prd, need to issue a proper corporate presentation to include the results of the nuetech log analysis of the mou 3 and mou 4 wells to re assure investors.

Jimmy

Very disappointed by this mornings rns, like so many here.

It’s hard to believe that a board of directors could issue such rns regarding testing at mou .

Predator have raised equity on three occasions on each occasion part of the funds were to be used for flow testing, yet it has not happened.

My reading of the situation, which could obviously be wrong, is that predator are lining up the next project in case the mou project does not work out.for whatever reason, an insurance policy if you like.

The board of directors need to take collective responsibility for rns announcements and the stock exchange nomad needs to actively supervise its client .

Because 3 wells have been reported as having found gas I believe it’s there in volumes, if there had been just one well, I would have sold my shares by now.

Jimmy

There is a major empty gas pipe 4 km from mou 1 which goes to Spain. Easy to connect into.

Jimmy

Great discussion regarding source rock gas generation volumes .

However, from an economic perspective it’s all about recoverable gas volumes of gas trapped in reservoirs.

I previously posted there is approx 1.2 tcf in the mou fan and mou A sands proven in mou 1 and mou 3 over an area shown in seismic of 30 to 50km2.

Those calculations assumed a 70% gas fill , as the gas water contacts have not yet been to be proven so if the gas generated by the source rocks are so high, there may be more gas fill than the 70% I assumed.

The really high upside is to proove if the 240 meters of Jurassic carbonates anticipated for mou 4 were in fact encountered but only 2 meters were gas gas bearing and the remainder may have been below the gas water contact, which I suspect, but do not know because that has not been released. If correct, then there is a giant prospect to be appraised up dip of mou 4 proven gas in the carbonates, perhaps another 4 tcf, but need more information of what was found in mou 4 carbonates.

Lots of low risk high potential here, particularly at these share prices.

Jimmy

Comment should read, no compartmentalisation then fewer production wells needed.

J

Nigel,

If there is pressure correlation between mou 1 and mou 3 then that would be important evidence to indicate there were no faults between mou 1 and mou3 which could compartmentalise the field and hence require more production wells to drain the field .

That’s hugely important offshore when a well might cost $30 to $40 million, but onshore predator claim they can drill for $2.5 million, so not a big deal.

What’s unknown is the gas water contact , and there is a good argument to indicate that the reservoirs are full to the spill point, given the seismic gas cloud to east of mou 2. In the absence of further data, I assumed reservoirs are only 70% full of gas , which may be conservative. In addition I assumed a 66% gas recovery which is very conservative and could reach 85% to 90% with further flow test data, so being conservative here also.

Jimmy

The mou3 logging rns stated.

The Moulouya Fan sand was encountered from 1378 to 1437 metres TVD MD with approximately 50.5 metres of sand versus a pre-drill P50 forecast of 19 metres.

Elevated background gas readings were recorded whilst drilling this section.

The interval correlates with the Moulouya Fan interval penetrated by MOU-1 drilled 7 kms. to the SW and its presence supports the development of the Moulouya Fan over an area of at least 30km².

My estimate of the potential recoverable gas is based on the average mou fan thickness of 30 meters as proven by mou 1 and mou3 wells.

My estimate of the recoverable gas volumes, if confirmed by flow testing is as follows.

30 meters of average reservoir thickness x 30km 2 area= 900 million km3 / 35.3 = 31,770,000,000 acre ft x 19% porosity x 66% recovery x 70% gas charge x 307 gas expansion factor = 856.1 bcf.

So between the two wells that would proove up 1.2 tcf of gas of which predator have 75%

Incredible value here for wells that have been drilled, logged and waiting on flow testing.

Jimmy

The mou 3 rns stated.

Within the interval from 815 to 895 metres TVD MD five potential sands with gas shows were encountered. Individual sands have a maximum thickness of 3 metres giving an estimated cumulative thickness of 11.5 metres versus a P10 pre-drill forecast sand thickness of 10 metres.

The Ma Sand had a 3% formation gas show.

Pre-drill P50 structural closure was determined to be 6km² for the area tested by MOU-3.

MOU-3 well results have confirmed that the Ma to TGB-6 interval can be correlated with the same gas-bearing interval in MOU-1, approximately 7 kms. to the southwest. The two well data points now support a seismically defined sequence covering an area of up to 58 km² that potentially forms a combined structural and stratigraphic trap for gas.

My estimate of the potential recoverable gas is as follows.

11 meters x 58 km2 = 63800,000 km3 /.353= 22,521,400 acre ft x porosity 19%xrecovery 66%x gas charge70% x gas expansion factor 182 = 359.8 bcf gross recoverable.

Jimmy

So just clarify the situation regarding the bonus, it’s only payable after a concession licence is issued and average daily production over 6 months is 50,000 barrels per day or approx 300,000 mcf per day, which is three times Morocco daily requirements at the moment, so this bonus will not be paid for a few years . Daily revenue is approx $3 million per day at such volumes, so it’s not an issue, nice problem to have.

Jimmy