Member Info for Jimmy23

Josh,

There is a considerable difference in the prd reservoirs in the mou fan prospects, which are thin sands in a basin that’s suffered inversion, hence risk of reservoir compartmentalisation and leakage. Indeed the seismic lines to the east mou2 show a gas cloud, indicative of reservoir leakage. That’s my theory as to why the prd mou wells 1 to 4 have not achieved a flow rate to date and there seems little urgency by prd to achieve such a flow rate. Time will tell.

On the other hand anchois 1 had 50 meters of proven gas , anchois2 had 150 meters and anchois 3 24 meters of proven gas, supported by wire line logs and extensive gas sampling and reservoir pressure readings.

Both chariot and prd have suffered from lack of production cashflow to fund basic overheads and further drilling and shareholders in both have paid a price in equity dilution.I believe chariot will focus on getting onshore into production asap with local support.

With regard to chariot recovering its former high share prices, it’s very possible and subject to exploration success could be as follows.

Namibia prospect size 1 billion bbls, chariot interest after farm out and drilling success 20% from 90% initially. Net reserve 200 million, value in ground undeveloped $3 per bbl, asset value $600 million. Obviously it’s a long way to go and these are scoping calculations, but it shows the potential. Some discoveries in Namibia are being reported as circa 8 or 9 billion bbls.

Jimmy

Hi Klien.

1. The de merger and floatation of the renewables will reduce cash burn and by floating allow the renewables to grow more quickly, as the business involves high leverage supported by take or pay offtake contracts, its growth would be exponential if supported by more equity, to be raised in a floatation. I suspect that chariot will then use its retained interest in the renewables as a source of cashflow as it sells down its equity to fund the oil and gas division. My preference is for onshore Morocco to fund oil and gas overheads instead.

2. Onshore Morocco is definitely to quickest route to cashflow, and Morocco state plans to extend the state pipeline is definitely supportive of such a strategy. Yes it could generate cashflow in 2 years.

3. Namibia potential is multi billion barrels, similar to recent discoveries in the orange basin. The previous well in the licence found a very thick nearly mature oil source rock that will be in the oil window in deeper water in the west of the licence. .

Previous partners in that licence with chariot were Petrobas and Bp who are obvious partners for a quick farm out. With regard to valuations it’s really hard to estimate without more information, but could go 10x from here.

Jimmy

Many thanks for the kind comments of so many of you.

I am looking forward chariot releasing its fundraising presentation so shareholders get a better appreciation of the geology and the strategy.

For me the priority has to be to get onshore Morocco into production asap to avoid the ongoing equity dilutions that have destroyed this share price in recent years.

Anchois will most likely be developed, supported by a state gas price guarantee , which unlocks project finance .

Namibia is the giant prize, but it will take longer

Jimmy

I would add, even GRH , does not know if mou5 was a natural gas discovery or not.

In my view that’s a poor reflection on prd that it cannot be straight and clear with its shareholders, was it a natural gas discovery or not ?

Jimmy

Pv72,

I posted previously before mou5 was drilled that I liked the prospect.

The reason. I liked the prospect was that the basin has been inverted twice and suffered compression, along with the fact that the carbonates were a lot shallower than previously drilled carbonates in the basin and hence more likely to be karstified.

I was very enthusiastic after mou4 and the decision to flow test mou4 ,but when t prd decided not to derisk the prospect by flow testing mou4 I felt it was time to sell most of my holding.

The prd strategy appears to me to be Bait and Switch and the many posters here who believe that mou5 was a natural gas discovery seem to be unwitting a compliances in such a strategy.

I don’t hear many posters here calling for clarity from prd as to whether mou5 was a natural gas discovery or not.

Why?

Jimmy

Ibiza,

What was the flow rate of helium

Answer , none.

It was a helium gas show in a fracture zone .

It’s an exploration lead not a discovery, otherwise prd would have flow tested it.

J

I the geo

My explanation as to why there is a well head on mou5 for potential later drilling, is a personal opinion, equally as valid as some investors who believe that mou 5 is a natural gas discovery.

All the more reason for prd to issue an Rns to clarify the well results. So far no rns so it seems to me like another pump and dump by the usual suspects.

J

I still have some shares in prd, but sold most at 9.25 after prd decided not to flow test mou4 .

I feel that prd are not being straight with investors, they issue rns well results that are not clear as witnessed by the debate here on whether mou5 is a natural gas discovery or not , they have repeatedly missed self imposed deadlines and failed to do what they said they would do on a number of occasions, as chronicled by In James we trust

I expect better from a publicly listed company with a full list on LSE.

I bought in after mou1 in the expectation there was a quick roadmap to production cashflow, four wells later and multiple equity dilutions still no natural gas flow rate.

J

The helium show that was encountered was in a fault, so not in a reservoir, so there could be potential deeper, or it could have migrated elswhere, that’s why it needs to be studied .

That is an exploration lead, a long way from a discovery.

Jimmy

The reason for the mou5 well head is to leave open the option to drill deeper for helium after they have assessed where the helium could be trapped in a reservoir.

Jimmy

Sandy,

I agree that the mou 5 did not state the words that mou5 is a dry hole.

I did state that this was my opinion based on the information released, which I mention in my post.

In particular , the rns identifies potential up dip of mou5, it does not identify potential at mou5.

Given the confusion that the interpretation of the mou5 results has caused amongst so many parties on this LSE site, I think there+are strong grounds to lodge a complaint with the stockexchange that the mou5 rns well result has created a false market in shares of predator and insist that the directors of predators should rectify the situation as a matter of urgency.

In my view if investors buy shares in predator in the reasonable belief after reading the mou5 well result rns that it found reservoirs and natural gas in the carbonates, and if that was not the case then the directors of predators should should be checking their professional indemnity insurance.

My reading of that rns is that mou5 is a dry hole, even if those words not used.

Jimmy

My view of the mou5 well result rns and prd commentary is as follows, others will differ, which is fine.

Firstly, mou5 was a dry hole , in my view.

The well encountered the Jurassic carbonates deeper than expected due to the presence of an unexpected salt layer. The carbonates were not of reservoir quality but may indicate the possibility of karstified carbonates up dip where reservoirs are expected to be better developed.

In my view, the well encountered the top of the carbonates below the bottom of the equivalent carbonates found in mou4, hence most likely below a gas water contact, hence dry.

My guess is that prd are in consultation with a range of third party geology experts to validate that the carbonates are better developed up dip, to be confirmed by a major 3D seismic program and further drilling.

Accordingly, drilling of the updip prospect will occur in about 2 or 3 years.

Interestingly to see if any of the previously used independent technical experts will be used for this next piece of work.

J

Oyterman,

Do you know of any other examples where a company has made a gas discovery in Morocco and it was not announced due to restrictions by officials in Morocco or does this situation only apply to prd.

Jimmy

Nice explanation of karstified limestone, I think you should also have mentioned that prd have not reported that karstified limestone was found in mou5.

J

GRH.

That’s rubbish.

J

With regard to the potential up dip of mou5, it would be really helpful if prd clarified the following matters.

1. Was the 50 meters of Jurassic carbonates encountered in mou5 , fractured and karstified, and

2, was the jurrasic carbonates in mou5 encountered , top of section, below the equivalent in mou4.

If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative then the potential updip still remains, and could be derisked by flow testing mou4.

Note the 50 meters of carbonates encountered was less than the 247 meters expected, so likely reserve volumes reduced accordingly.

Jimmy

Keith

You stated you endorsed the geology information.

Many readers of the Reddit review may have considered such comments as being informed by the results of mou5 well results.

I appreciate that such comments may have been pre well prognosis, but so was the 247 meters of carbonates , and the actual was 50 meters and no mention of karstified limestone as being encountered, instead it was reported that better reservoir development expected up dip.

J

Keith

In your Reddit review you state

“ These carbonates are karstified — meaning they have natural cavities and high permeability, ideal for gas to flow rapidly.”

Can you advise what the source is for that statement, and that it relates to mou5 carbonates.

Thank you

J

Msrceen,

We know predator have oil in Trinidad, but we do not know if it’s generating positive cashflow yet.

Predator have also been talking of generating gas onshore for cng but have not achieved a flow rate yet despite several attempts.

Predator seem to be still in the pump and dump mode, looking for the next giant discovery.

I am expecting another fundraise from predator to finance mou6 and possible flow testing of mou5, which has yet to report finding natural gas, although some posters on LSE are convinced mou5 have found gas but prd have not reported it.

Time will tell.

Jimmy

Surfit.

Since chariot floated in 2008 it has failed to generate positive cashflow and funded high executive salaries from ongoing shareholder dilution, much of which has been financed by Ap .

Things go wrong in exploration which is why it’s so important to generate enough cash to cover basic overheads and stay in the game without annual shareholder dilutions. This is what is holding back the chariot share price as the market keeps on anticipating another fundraise.

The onshore Morocco must be a priority to generate this minimum cashflow and then the market will re assess the other assets.

Jimmy