Member Info for Jimmy23

Fernan,

I would not compare barryroe to anchois as barryroe had very thin sand reservoirs below direct seismic identification. Anchois has thick sand reservoirs and a very modern 3D seismic with direct correlation to two drilled wells which validated the seismic interpretation and they are located in a basin with an 85% drilling success using modern seismic attributes.

I believe it’s highly unlikely they will drill anchois east without a farm out to finance it.

Jimmy

Gooner,

My reading of the chariot situation is they they have received farm in offers that did not adequately value the low risk additional gas potential of anchois east, and the O sands below anchois 1 and anchois west, which if successful would bring proven gas volumes to circa 2tcf.

The first step is to get anchois east drilled, and chariot announced the ordering of long lead items for a well and issued a rig request for tender for drilling. If successfull that low risk production well and exploration appraisal well will bring proven gas to 1020 bcf and unlock the field development farm in.

Huge progress has been made on environmental base line reports and gas pipeline surveys that are required to derisk the development to secure a development farmin the value of which will be determined by the anchois east well results.

That’s my reading of the Agm presentation.

Jimmy

I have been considering why a farm out has not been announced yet. We know we are starting with 637 bcf of proven gas, but as disclosed on page 11 of the latest presentation there is substantial very low risk upside . Chariot have disclosed that they have ordered long lead time drilling equipment and issued tenders for a drilling rig and services for early next year, to drill anchois east production development well and will include a slight deepening to the proven O sand , below anchois east and to drill the anchois north footwall. These additional targets have a reported chance of success of 49 to 64% . If successful such a development well would increase proven gas volumes to 1020 bcf.

So my guess is that farm in partners are not giving enough value to these low risk gas prospects, so one possible solution is a phased farm in deal. Initial farm in is for x % of the 637 bcf proven gas, which would reduce if the proven gas increases.

If the exploration potential of anchois east gets proven it increases proven gas to 1020 bcf, but it also de risks the O sand below anchois 1 and anchois west and plié, combined they increase gas volumes by a further 914 bcf.

So, I am expecting a phased farm out to include low risk exploration drilling and a capex carry depending on new proven gas , supported by project debt if required.

A lot of value here and very low risk.

Jimmy

I am disappointed they did not include the Agm presentation with the rns.

Hopefully some good news when they release the Agm presentation.

Jimmy

Louis,

I find it extraordinary that you look at an evaluation of chariot without any reference to the proven gas volumes or indeed the low risk prospective resources which can drilled at very little incremental costs when developing the anchois field.

Jimmy

Some light reading while we wait.

https://www.academia.edu/61498232/Sedimentary_provenance_of_the_Taza_Guercif_Basin_South_Rifean_Corridor_Morocco_Implications_for_basin_emergence?email_work_card=view-paper

Jimmy

Keith

Provides detailed and useful technical and valuation data based on years of relevant experience. Invaluable for long term investors and despised by traders who take short term views irrespective of the value of the relevant assets.

J

Ls8,

I understood the 484 bcf reported by fox Davies was only in relation to 20 meters reservoir in the Jurassic carbonates, the pre drill prognosis was for 240 meters of carbonates.

Then there is the mou fan, reservoir, the Ma reservoir and a number of smaller reservoirs.

Now apply your valuation to those also.

Jimmy

Interesting to review the mou 1 testing plans with those previously announced

1. The Ma reservoir is to be tested between 769 to 912 meters and 8 horizons are to be tested, this compares with 5 horizons previously announced. These zones are important as they have been seismically correlated to 5 horizons in mou 3 between 815 to 895 meters with an seismically identified area of 59km2, so substantial volumes of potential gas if the reservoirs from the two wells can be linked.

2. The other main zone previously identified in mou 1 was the tgb2 reservoir (fan) at 1217 to 1300 meters and 10 horizons are now to be tested, this was previously 6. The previous reservoirs totaled 12 meters in 6 horizons. Equivalent sands have been encountered in mou 3 at 1379 to 1422 with 42 meters of reservoir to be tested. The thicker reservoir is consistent with the geological model of a turbidite fan.

There are three additional horizons to be flow tested in mou 1 which were not previously reported.

a) tgb5 , 967 to 991 , comprising of two horizons.

b) new zone at 1035

c) top hoot 1397 to 1400 , one horizon.

So we have more zones to flow than previously reported, and two of the main reservoir sections can be correlated to gas zones in mou 3.

A lot of good news to look forward to.

Jimmy

Nothopeful

Agreed , I miss read that section of rns.

Thanks

Jimmy

Walkman

There is to be no coiled tubing unit, please see the rns extract below.

“ An alternative to a coiled tubing unit originally sourced out of Tunisia, which is required to run the Sandjet perforating tool, has been now been sourced in France by ECS. This will enable the testing programme to commence at the earliest possible opportunity in September. Shipping logistics from Tunisia, due to competition for vessel cargo space, created uncertainty regarding the exact scheduling of commencement of field operations.”

Jimmy

Art 123,

Thank you for your comments as it’s always good to get other opinions. However, I disagree with your analysis and conclusions for the following reasons.

1. Mou 1 has been reported by the recent cpr as having 100% geological chance of success. In addition the reservoir sands encountered there were structurally deeper than mou 3 or mou 4 and hence is better placed to identify a gas water contact or higher water cut than shallower wells.note mou 1 gas in the tgb2 reservoir was overpressurised and hence not comparable to sound energy.

2. Predator previously advised that the thick reservoir section in mou 3 can be traced on seismic as being correlated to an equivalent sand at mou 1. Makes sense to get pressure and flow test data from the deepest part of the structure first, which will then inform flow testing at mou 3.

3. The choice of sandjet as the perforation tool over standard explosives was not so much based on cost, as another poster noted the all in costs are not that different., but rather to do with fact that the main reservoir in mou 1 is an unconsolidated sand reservoir , which could potentially be damaged by standard explosive charges. In addition the sandjet process gets deeper reservoir penetration with wider pore space.

I agree with you that mou 1 should have been tested a long time ago, and that seems an error. However, by flow testing mou 1 first it may help to calibrate the logs for testing at mou 3.

As a separate matter, mou 1 also happens to be nearest the main gas pipeline which could indicate where the central processing plant will be located.

I have not correlated the testing depth intervals to the gas zones at mou 3 , which should be interesting.

Looking forward to test results and a debt financed cng development as advised to day.

Pg is an exploration it’s and just wants to drill, but high priority needs to be given to getting to positive cashflow with cng that will finance follow up wells.

Jimmy

Https://www.upstreamonline.com/finance/harbour-optimistic-about-m-a-transaction-as-sellers-face-realities/2-1-1506205

Surprised to learn there is activity at mou 2 as I did not think it was to be flow tested.

The mud logs showed reservoir but the electric logs could not reach it , is it to be flow tested anyhow?

Jimmy

There will be an update before the Agm, so the meeting can discuss the latest information, as usual.

Jimmy

Jalisco,

The chance of success for mou 2 and 3 are irrelevant in the cpr, because that was before gas was subsequently found in mou 3 and mou4, mou 2 was suspend above its target.

It’s important that you read the rns also.

Jimmy

Good idea Louis, everybody should read the cpr.

Page 83 reports that the geological chance of success of sufficient gas flows from well mou 1 for a cng pilot plant is 100% and a commercial chance of success of 75%.

Since the cpr, mou 3 and mou 4 wells were drilled Pdr announced a further 140 meters of gas reservoirs to be flow tested.

Jimmy

Gooner,

The issue is communication,

If dealing with a super major, it can take 6 months plus to complete legals and that’s after the heads of terms agreed, and there were over 40 visits to the data room. They probably got the timescale wrong, but they should admit this and complete asap.

Jimmy

Ianfer,

Chariot communication on its corporate progress is awfull.

There needs to a business update corporate presentation once every quarter.

Need to get production cashflow asap and stop the equity dilution.

Jimmy

The forward gas price in Spain for 2024 is $17.88 mcf, great news for chariot.

Jimmy