Member Info for Jimmy23

The use of overbalanced mud weight can cause reservoir damage in highly porous and permeable reservoirs, so why not flow test the 2 meters of carbonates reservoirs found in mou4, for which funds have been raised multiple times to flow test.

J

Pwooly,

The independant technical report at,

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2024.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2024/09/Guercif_-ITR_20240124.pdf

For the A sand reports a gross thickness of 11 meters , based on mud log reports. No wireline logs at those depths so we do not know the net to gross in that interval.

Interestingly, the independant technical report identified the risk of reservoir damage from the use of heavy mud weights, and the yet the low cost option taken to perforate the well, which now turns out to be the high cost option when a new well was required.

J

Interestingly, there is no mention of swabbing the deeper mou3 sands which failed to flow at a previous attempt.

The new mou6 well, beside the mou3 well location is only being drilled to 950 meters so it will not penetrate the deeper reservoirs and the mou fan reservoir.

Says a lot.

J

Yes, I hate Friday rns’.

Given the magnitude of the reported shallow gas kick I suppose it had to be flow tested, however, it was high risk, because the shallow reservoir was not wireline logged, another cost saving measure.

With five wells drilled, and mou fan reservoirs and the shallow gas reservoirs failing to flow gas, maybe there is another explanation for failure to flow gas.

It seems to me that the reservoirs are relatively thin and located in a basin that’s undergone basin inversion, so the gas may have migrated during inversion and left behind residual gas, that shows as a gas show when drilling but needs to be flow tested to determine if there is sufficient reservoir volume to flow.

The drilling mud explanation at mou3 does not apply to the carbonates at mou4, and this should be flow tested before drilling the jurrasic carbonates.

Unfortunately, we are now very much further away from production cashflow, so I am expecting more pump and dump equity dilutions.

J

So sad tritoretire,

If can’t play the ball , you play the man.

J

I hope the flow test news is before Friday, bad news often on Fridays.

J

GRH,

Can you kindly explain how the shallow sands which are to be tested in mou 3 and are sourced from a biogenic shallow source , that a successful flow de risks the deeper sands reservoirs which are sourced from a thermogenic source.

Jimmy

MEM.

The mou3 shallow prospect is 20Bcf, it’s important as a successful flow test would lead to a clear path to positive cashflow and stop the pump and dump equity dilutions. We are a long way from your valuation targets.

J

Salt is a great top seal, but it distorts seismic time depth conversion and can make prospects appear shallower than they actually are. This is why 3D seismic is required to accurately map such prospects.

What’s really important though is the flow testing of mou 3 shallow sands as this is the route to positive cashflow and get away from the outdated pump and equity dump strategy which has diluted shareholders so much.

I am hoping for a sustained flow rate of 10 mmcf per day which would prove up about 20 bcf,

J

Euro champ.

Pity you can’t play the ball and not the man.

J

Of course there is upside up dip of mou5, the key piece of information is whether the mou5 carbonates are in fact karstified, as it’s then likely they are karstified updip dip.

That will be of major interest for a farm out. Got to wait on the mou5 final well results to find out.

Of course there is upside for helium in those circumstances. At this stage this is just an exploration lead.

Jimmy

So some people still believe that mou5 found natural gas.

The rns state.

“ The Company intends to maintain interest in the “blue sky” MOU-5 updip”

If mou5 was a discovery the updip would not be blue sky.

J

So now we know why the mou5 well was suspended, to allow the later drilling into the Triassic, so theories that mou5 was a giant discovery are well wide of the mark.

The delay in issuing a final well analysis of mou5 till after mou3 flow testing is just kicking the can down the road, to get the Trinidad deal done and avoid issuing shares at an even lower price for Trinidad if they provide details that mou5 did not succeed in finding gas.

More Bait, Switch And Dilute, unfortunately.

J

The last corporate presentation is from December 2023, on its website.

Chariot needs to update this to incorporate all that has happened since then.

Jimmy

The most likely exploitation concession licence is for the shallow sands in mou3, provided they are successfully flowed tested, since they have not been wireline logged.

Difiifult to see how a concession licence could be issued for the mou fan area as two attempts at flow testing have not resulted in a gas flow. There is no date yet for the planned swabbing of mou3 .

The last update stated that mou3 shallow sands are to be flow tested by end of June. So far no news of the perforation equipment and flow testing equipment being mobilised to site, so I expect it’s most likely it won’t occur by the end of June when a further $750k in cash and shares is payable for the Trinidad deal.

J

Marceen,

I am invested in both char and predator , but sold most of my predator investment at a profit at 9.25.p

Both chariot and predator have made the error of not getting to production cashflow to cover core overheads and both shareholders have suffered equity dilution as a consequence.

The predator LSE website gets upset with me when I correct the fantasy expectations of some investors and I try to focus on rns based data. I first invested in prd after mou1 and believed prd plans to rapidly progress to cng cashflow, many years later and four more wells, still not any gas flowing, just lots of bait and switch equity fundraising . So I am on the sidelines waiting for prd to acquire a partner and wait for 3D seismic to be completed. More equity dilution for prd as it needs to pay for a Trinidad deal in cash and shares totalling $750k by end of June, so I expect the prd LSE board to start going into super ramp soon.

With regard to chariot, disappointed they did not flow test onshore as they said they would but expect it to happen soon, I also believe anchois is e€onomical so I will be investing in the open offer and have oversubscribed.

Waiting on chariot to post its investor presentation update before commenting further.

Jimmy

So paretoprincipal,

I note you decline to share the source of your inspired research note for validation.

In my view then, it must be fantasy as there is no proven source for such facts.

J

Paretoprincipal,

You state in your note,about mou5,

“ Validates carbonate model: Confirms the carbonate dome exists, contains reservoir quality rock, and is gas-charged.”

In what rns or pg interview is that statement made.

Thank you

J

Harry,

You are again overlooking the fact that chariot have a strong track record of acquiring 3D and drilling wells in Namibia.

J

Sandy bugler,

There are some here that claim that the 6tcf prospect titanasirius based on 248 meters of carbonates is valid when only 50 meters on unspecified quality carbonates has been encountered.

It’s now nearly three months since the mou5 preliminary well results and predator are facilitating wild speculation about the prospect size by not advising shareholders what was found.

Other companies do not take this long to perform well analysis.

J