Member Info for Jimmy23

Harry,

You really have little attention to detail , and once again your analysis of chariots situation in the Namibian orange basin is wrong.

The K1 well drilled by chariot Bp and Petrobas many years ago found a huge thickness of oil source rocks at over 200 meters which was not mature for oil. Because the oil source rocks was found at a relatively shallow depth the source rock was not mature for oil generation.

Further west in deeper water the source rocks are mature for oil and a number of oil companies have made multi billion bbl oil discoveries with a very high success rate.

I believe that the Namibian authorities recognise the groundbreaking work by chariot which lead the way to these giant discoveries. Hence the special relationship.

J

Nametrade.

You asked the question

“ So if there was only 50m as you have said, why does the RNS say the top 50m?....”

The answer is because that’s the intersection of Jurassic carbonates that’s relevant to the potential updip.

The rns also states.

“50 metre interval under petrophysical and petrographic review”

So if there was more than 50 meters in the carbonates they would surely have that interval under review also.

In any event, if there is good news to update the preliminary mou5 preliminary results rns then surely they will want that issued before the end of June when the balance on the Trinidad has to be paid for.

If it’s bad news I expect it will be delayed to beyond the end of the month.

J

Inthegeo,

If they drill 22km away it’s likely to be 100 meters up , is what they say, so even in an optimistic scenario it’s hard to see how you could get 248 meters of reservoir into that space.

In any event it will take a farmout followed by 3D followed by drilling before we know for sure so at least three years away.

J

Ithegeo,

I don’t believe that the 6tcf potential resource for titanasorous is valid any longer as it was based on a seismic interpretation that expected 248 meter of karstified limestone when in fact only50 meters of limestone was in fact found in mou5 and we do not know if such limestones was karstified or not, as the results of mou5 three months ago were a preliminary analysis which has not been updated.

It would be more realistic to use one fifth of the resource estimates.

J

Foot and mouth,

The parties here who claim giant natural resource discoveries without evidence are the parties not playing with a straight bat.

The independent experts reports on thin sand gas intervals stated that the wireline logging of such thin reservoirs required to be validated by a successfull flow test. This has not happened.

The swabbing of the perforated zones in mou3 has been deferred till further notice, no flow testing of mou4 and the perforation of the reported shallow reservoir high gas pressure zones that were not wireline logged due to occur in Q2 has not occurred yet.

I understand the balance for the payment of the last Trinidad acquisition is payable in shares by the end of June, so in the absence of a successful flow testing from mou3 , I expect there will be a lot of commentary about potential giant gas discoveries in the next three weeks.

J

Should read clogged.

Foot and mouth

What’s “flagged”

J

Garfie,

Really interesting that total were the successful farmin to galp s giant oil discovery.

That leaves Petrobas looking to get into the prolific orange basin.

Petrobas and Bp were previous partners of chariot in blocks 2714 an and b so they will know the 3D seismic very well.

Hopefully good news shortly.

J

Great news GRh.

Now maybe prd might flow test the carbonates in mou4 , as they said they would do, particularly as gas saturations were reported as high in the 2 meters of carbonates reported in mou4.

J

Foot and mouth.

I notice a lot of posts on this site criticising chariot, mostly before another pump and dump equity fundraising by predator.

Happy for you to discuss chariot on the chariot LSE board.

By the way how much has pg spent in his various exploration ventures since 2008 ?

J

Cephalo,

Happy to discuss chariot on the chariot board.

Cephalo, I suggest you read the chariots rns before stating anchois was a duster. All three of the anchois wells have found natural gas.

It’s a pity that posters here prefer to play the man and not the ball, and discuss the need for 3D seismic by predator

J

Nicotine.

It’s not that I am out to raise doubts but to raise awareness that pg has a strong track record of saying one thing, perhaps to get a fundraise underway, and then not to do it at all or do it in a timely fashion.

Examples.

1. Complete and fully wireline log mou2

2.Perforate the shallow reservoirs in mou3, why notwhen sand jet facilities were on site?

3.Swab the mou3 fan reservoir, still pending months after well perforation

4,no flow test mou4 carbonates completed.

5. No mou5 detailed well results announced, no total depth reported, no porosity reported for the carbonates, no lithology report on the 50 meters of carbonates encountered, no porosity reported on the unexpected Jurassic’ sand reservoir, no report on the lateral extent of the unexpected salt layer and its implications.

I believe it’s fair to comment on these matters and hopefully pg can learn that investors expect him to do what he says .

Jimmy

Nickotin.

Chariot and predator are different investments and different risk profiles.

There is almost no mention of predator on the LSE chariot site, whereas some investors here are frequent commentators of chariot on the predator website.

I generally don’t discuss chariot on this site, except to reply to a specific comment..

Strange.

Jimmy

Foot and mouth,

Do you have any comments on prd and 3D seismic.

If you want to discuss chariot post on the chariot site.

Jimmy

Must have struck a raw nerve, I post about prd confirming that 3D seismic is required, and the response is about chariot.

Keith are you suggesting that prd do not need to acquire 3D seismic.

J

Josh,

Anchois 3 encountered less gas reservoirs than expected, which I estimate at approx25 meters, and which chariot now report that anchois has sufficient proven gas to proceed to a development, although smaller than expected.

The karstified limestones can be highly variable and this why prd have stated that 3D seismic is required, which then needs validation by drilling.

The chariot anchois reservoirs are not karstified limestones .

Jimmy

GRH frequently talks in riddles, so it’s hard to interpret.

Pg has stated that 3D seismic is needed and it’s certainly clear to me why that’s the case and reliance on new seismic interpretation is dangerous when previous seismic interpretations have encountered unexpected results when actually drilled.

This is my estimate of the seismic interpretation challenges.

1. Mou1 encountered thinner sands than expected, requiring specialist log interpretation consultancy to identify probable gas, that has yet to be validated by flow testing, as suggested by technical consultants.

2. Mou2 encountered an unexpected mud slump, that halted drilling prematurely and prevented wireline logging of the full drilled section.

3. Mou3 encountered an unexpected shallow gas reservoir that necessitated well control intervention. The shallow sands were were not wire line logged as this was unexpected.

4. Mou4 reported 2 meters of gas charged carbonates that were to be flow tested, but this has not occurred. Struggling to understand why, one explanation could be thin reservoir is compartmentalised and hence may be challenging to get a sustained flow rate.

5. Mou 5 encountered a salt layer that was unexpected from seismic. Mou5 also encountered a 50 meters of gas carbonate section when 247 meters was expected, and also encountered a 30 meter sand reservoir which was unexpected. We do not know the porosity of the carbonates, and this can be very variable. I am expecting prd to report it was the edge of karstified limestone and better reservoir expected up dip. The problem is with only six seismic lines it’s hard to extrapolate across such a huge structure.

Hence 3D needed.

Jimmy

Hi fernan

I agree with your estimate of about 450 bcf proven at anchois.

The average flow rate for these reservoirs onshore is approx 2 mmcf per meter of net reservoir, so high flow rates expected, which will repay development capex very quickly, then add in extra low risk resources such as anchois west and it becomes very attractive for someone to farm in again.

Jimmy

Hi fernan,

The anchois 3 reservoir is my best estimate based on the well results rns,, which stated that gas was found but the reservoirs were less developed and deeper than expected.

Anchois 1 had 25 meters in the A sand and 25 meters in the b sand and anchois 2 had about 100 meters in the B sand, from memory. So I have been slightly more conservative than the anchois 1 B sand amount.

I should have clarified that as my estimate.

With regard to the anchois 3 sands being deeper than expected, that was a real surprise to me , particularly with 3D seismic and two nearby wells as control for seismic time depth conversion.

My personal guess, without any direct evidence, is that a salt layer was encountered, great top seal, that was unexpected, and which made the reservoirs below the salt appear shallower than they actually were.

Hope that clarifies my previous post.

Jimmy

Josh,

To answer your question, anchois 2 was drilled by chariot when the loukos licence was held by another company. Anchois 3 was drilled and paid for by energean at around the same time as chariot drilled two wells onshore into the loukos licence.

J