Member Info for Jimmy23

Hi Keith
Thank you for your calculations.
Can you clarify basis for the 1.8tcf of net p50 reserve at moulya fan.
My understanding was that it is 819 bcf, comprising of the mou 2 contingent resource and the mou 3 prospective resource.
Thanks
Jimmy

Jolly hs
Thank you for your comments, but seriously calling me venerable is unwarranted.
I am a lth like so many others here and see the incredible value.
Jimmy

Intesting article on gas and lng
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europe-facing-costly-winter-without-enough-long-term-lng-deals-2023-04-06/
Jimmy

That’s an official boooooooom
What a great day
Jimmy

600 million US dollars was my last capex estimate
J

GRH.
Your assumptions are incorrect .
I have no conflicts of interest. Invested in both chariot and Pdr and looking for large gains in both.
I am not in communication with chariot directly or indirectly.
Jimmt

I am reading to days rns that flow testing of mou 1 will begin in April.
So I thought it might be interesting to consider what we might learn from the flow test.
Obviously the rate of constant flow volumes is the initial information we will all be waiting for to determine commerciality.
However, we are also trying to establish
1. An implied gas water contact depth , and
2. A proven gas down to level.
My reading of the tgb2 reservoir map on the latest presentation is that
a. The mou 1 well was drilled and proved gas at a seismic twt depth of 1740.
b. The first structural spill point at mou 1 is at 1940 twt depth , which is approximately 2800 meters from mou 1.
c. It looks like the mou 3 well will be drilled to encounter the tgb 2 sands at a seismic twt of 1860 , so deeper than mou 1.but above the mou 1 spill point.
As there do not appear to be any faults between mou 1 and mou 3 , the flow test at mou 1 may well prove a gas down to level which is below the prognosis depth for gas at mou 3.
If the flow test at mou 1 can prove gas down to below 1920 , a big ask as it circa 3km away, then it would prove up gas all the way between mou 1 and mou 3.
It’s most likely that will not be achieved from the flow test at mou 1 , but if the reservoir pressures at mou 1 and mou 3 are in communication that would then determine the gas connectivity profile between the wells.
So a lot will be learnt from the flow testing at mou 1
Jimmy

25 years in upstream oil and gas

Apparently, chevron are looking for gas opportunities near Europe.
Usually farm in partners look to have operatorship, but I think it’s too late for that now with a multi well drilling program scheduled for later this year.
Perhaps operatorship of the gas production as an alternative.
Jimmy

I think chariot retained slr for its morroco planning permissions,
Jimmy

Hi surfit,
The hydrogen feasability study is due for completion in q4 this year including the signing of offtake contract, that’s what will crystallise a valuation, the funding of the capex is expected to by way of a combination of farm out and to de merge the h2 business., as per the recent chariot presentation.
So I don’t see hydrogen as an equity dilution factor.
With regard to the renewables , there have been some high profile investments by pension funds in renewable energy projects as they are in fact a form of annuity.
Chariot cfo has stated that the renewable would be financed by way of investment into the renewables subsidiary.
The hydrogen project has been valued at nil , but I think it will surprise all.
Jimmy

$1 million to $2 million per bcf.
Jimmy

Surfit,
Clearly we do not know for certain what the outcome will be. However, we do know that chariot have repeatedly stated they are in a competitive strategic partnering process.
I believe there will be a farm out to a major oil company that will refinance chariot,
Based on the published proven and prospective gas volumes I have previously calculated a range of farm out volumes, I am expecting a farmout that that will both refinance chariot and provide third party validation for a valuation that is multiples of the current share price.
Clearly I have no insider knowledge, just years of experience to calculate what 150 mmcf per day will generate in ebitda and apply an oil industry multiple of your choice.
Three broker reports did not value chariot in the mid 60p by accident.
With regard to the other chariot divisions, I am expecting chariot to reduce interest in project nour substantially in exchange for a capex carry, expect final interest around 10 to 15%
With regard to the renwables, this will be valuable and they have stated they will expect to take third party funding into the subsidiary.
That’s my analysis of the sitauation based on what chariot has announced to date.
Jimmy

Surfit,
In a farm out there is usually a reimbursement of past costs to the party farming out, and chariot can use those funds as it wishes.
In addition if there is a carried interest for some of the exploration and development costs that would include the costs incurred by chariot, so I believe a good farm out will resolve all the issues you identified.
Jimmy

Nigel,
You ask a fair question, and it’s a pity that predator have not more fully explained the strategy . I have considered the issue of testing sequence and have formed the following opinion.
1. We now know that the mud in mou 2 seals the tgb2 reservoir in mou 2 from mou 1 . The reason to drill mou 2 was to prove reservoir communication between mou 1 and 2 so completing mou 2 will not achieve that goal.
2. The mou 3 well is expecting gas in the tgb 2 and 4 reservoirs, but we have to drill to prove this, only then can we determine which sands have gas and to flow test those sands to see if they are in pressure communication with the equivalent gas reservoirs in mou 1.
3. Then flow test the equivalent reservoirs in mou 1
4. Then finish drilling and testing mou 2.
That’s what I think is the logic of what’s happening.
Jimmy

Hi AFCc,
If you look at page 13 of the last presentation and in particular look at the seismic time map called fan, you will notice that mou 3 is structurally lower than mou 1.
We know that the seismic amplitude anomaly have a 80% chance of success in the rharb basin and the drilling of mou 3 will establish if the seismic amplitude is validated to show that there is gas fill to the spill point in respect of tgb2 sands.
The mou 4 sands look like a good bet also now that we know they are sealed to the west by a fault and the mud seal.
Jimmy

Hi affc.
The new well mou 3 is targeting the tgb4 sands which is updip of mou 1, I don’t believe those sands were present in mou 1.
The main gas reservoir in mou 1 are the tgb2 sands and the seismic line you referenced does not actually extend to mou 3 , you need to look at the contours of the map to determine if it’s up dip or down dipof mou 1. My reading is that mou 3 is down dip in the tgb 2 sands from mou 1.
The mou 2 location would not have been my first choice as a location as I thought it was too close to the gas cloud, however that concern is now unfounded because of the thick mud seal. I believe pg chose mou 2 location because it was slightly higher than mou 1 in the tgb 2 sands.
Mou 3 .
The big unknown is the thickness of the reservoirs in tgb2 and tgb4 sands, which will determine flow rates and reserves . Git to drill to find out.
Jimmy

Hi Sasa,
Yes, serica like low risk projects, but I think they would not want to take 25% interest and invest $200 million to farm in a pay for exploration wells and development, they could be a good partner to farm in with some other party.
Jimmy

Should read , low exploration risk

GRH,
Thank you for your comments, it does look like a 60% net to gross, but those sands are not classified as the tgb 2 sands found at mou 1 , which are believed to be a lower down in the mou 2 well.
The sands at the bottom of mou 2 so far, discovered to date do not appear to have any gas shows in the mud logs, I supppse because the mud seal is so effective.
The seismic in the last presentation shows the mud seal up against the tgb2 reservoir to the west/left of the forecast mou 2 tgb 2 reservoir sands , so no migration of gas from mou 1 to mou 2, just in the reservoirs between mou 1 and 3.
It’s still likely that there could be gas in the tgb 2 sands further down in mou 2 but the migration will be from below rather than from west.
Hence why mou 3 is substantially derisked by the mud seal.
Jimmy