Member Info for Jimmy23

In addition to the quote from Jam yesterday of the Reddit report,

It also states.

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

This has not been reported by prd in an Rns, so a statement by prd is required to clarify if it’s true or not and if true how have third parties got this information ahead of shareholders.

Jimmy

The Reddit analysis states that the mou5 carbonates are of reservoir quality and are gas charged.

There is no rns statement from prd that supports that statement, which if true is clearly important.

Prd should issue an Rns to clarify this matter as a failure to do so could create a false market with some investors privy to insider information and others not .

Jimmy

Should have added,

Mou4 to flow test natural gas

J

I need to know

1. That the carbonates are karstified in mou5, and

2. The karstified carbonates in mou were encountered below mou4.

Jimmy

The research note states that the carbonates are karstified carbonates are present in mou5 , that’s really important information it needs to be confirmed by prd,

Jimmy

The reason the top seal of salt is relevant is because prd believe that up dip the reservoir will be better developed ,

Does not mean hydrocarbons found in mou5.

Sandy,

The point I am making is that the rns is read differently by Keith and I.

Answer is for prd to issue an Rns to clarify the situation and avoid a false market in its shares.

J

Keith

I understand that you believe that because there was no announcement of a gas discovery or high porosity carbonates that prd have made a discovery of hydrocarbons in the carbonate reservoirs , but prd have chosen not to announce this for some unspecified strategic reason.

On the other hand I read the mou5 well results as being a dry well, and as prd stated, there remains potential updip which requires 3D seismic and a farm out.

Which ever analysis is correct it is likely to be price sensitive result.

Prd have an obligation under stock exchange rules to avoid the creation of a false market in its shares and directors have onerous responsibilities to ensure that a proper market is maintained.

If investors in Australia or high profile uk investors have insider knowledge of the mou5 results that are not known to shareholders generally then prd should immediately issue an Rns setting out the facts and the latest mou 5 results interpretation so that all shareholders are in an equal position.

Jimmy

Let’s say that mou 5 encountered Jurassic carbonates below those reported prd in mou4. We cannot be certain but looks likely since the carbonates were encountered deeper than expected and the pre well prognosis was that the bottom of the carbonates would be approximately the same as that as the carbonates found in mou4, all 2 meters in mou4.

From an exploration perspective, the key in my view, is whether the 50 meters of carbonates found in mou5 have high porosity and permeability to both trap and flow natural gas. This has not been reported and I seem to recall that other carbonates in the area had poor porosity.

So there could still be potential updip of mou5. And above the reported gas at mou4, particularly if it can be demonstrated that the carbonates in mou5 had high porosity and permeability. We don’t know, but prd must know this.

So GRH asks readers what would they do?

My answer, announce the porosity and permeability of mou5 carbonates, flow test the carbonates in mou4 to prove a gas down to level, then farm out a well updip of mou5.

In the meantime, flow test mou3 and get into cashflow to fund overheads and stop ongoing equity dilution.

J

I think chariot did receive cash in the enog subsidiary, but that will be repayable on the same terms as the farm in agreement, from 50% of anchois production cashflow. As they acquired both an asset and an obligation there is no change in net assets and hence not requiring disclosure at this time.

I cannot find another explanation for enog to increase the share capital of its subsidiary for substantially more than it actually spent on the licence obligations and work programme.

Obviously, we will need to get confirmation from chariot or broker reports.

I suspect that anchois 3 encountered an unexpected salt layer, similar to prd s mou5 well , this had the effect of the reservoir appearing more shallow on seismic than it actually was in the well. That’s vital information which chariot can use to recalibrate its huge 3D data set and identify low risk add on prospects to its proven resources.

Remember 40 companies did data room due diligence before the enog deal so they know who to go back to.

Jimmy

Fernan,

I agree testing of loukos and getting into cashflow is the priority

J

Substantial cash balance in the energean subsidiary is likely .

Chariot down playing that at the moment to avoid embarrassment to energean.

J

Enog are unlikely to have spent much more than $40 million, so capitalising an initial $10 m and a further $67m could be because they want to create a capital loss for tax purposes in the uk topco before re assigning ownership back to chariot.

Having made a provision in their accounts for the full investment suggests to me that chariot could be getting a cash windfall as well as the anchois licence interest back. Obviously to be confirmed, but it’s looking likely to me .

Jimmy

The 6 tcf prospect was the pre drill estimate of 247 meters of Jurassic carbonate reservoirs of which 50 meters was in fact encountered. Notwithstanding the excellent quality wireline logs , no carbonate porosities were reported and 3D seismic is needed to determine were reservoir quality carbonates can be identified.

It’s not just whether helium is sourced in the area, but where are the reservoirs in which it’s trapped and can be flow tested .

Jimmy

We know that mou5 encountered the Jurassic carbonates deeper than expected.

The March 24 presentation is interesting as page 14 illustrates the structure and notes that condensate source rocks were encountered in mou4 in the oil window of source rock maturity.

It’s likely that mou5 encountered the same source rocks but deeper.

As the basin has encountered two periods of inversion since the early Jurassic it’s likely that such inversion would result in gas separation from condensate.

The question arises then as to where did the condensate and gas migrate to?

The second question is where will the Jurassic carbonates have reservoir porosity?

3D seismic will help answer these questions.

In the meantime, there is a need to get to production cashflow asap to avoid ongoing equity dilution which in turn will put prd in a stronger negotiating position to farm out the 3D seismic obligation.

Jimmy

Wiggly,

Good piece of work.

Unfortunately the 637 bcf for anchois pre dates the drilling of anchois 3, there is still proven gas in anchois 1 and 2 but we do not have an update. Anchois 2 encountered 150 meters of proven gas so it’s likely to be a very high gas flow rate in excess of 100 mmcf per day, but it probably needs either a guaranteed gas price or mor gas reserves from any of the satellite gas prospects to be economically viable.

The area is covered by a huge 3D seismic survey, so by incorporating the last well results it should be able to identify a low risk follow on satellite gas prospects which combined with anchois would be a strong candidate for development.

Definitely value in anchois.

Jimmy

Gas detected during drilling by analysing the drilling mud is known as a gas show. Such gas shows require validation by wireline logging followed by pressure and gas sampling or by flow testing.

No such validated gas has been reported in any of the five mou wells drilled by prd to date in guercif.

The validation of gas shows by flow testing is particularly important in a basin that’s undergone basin inversion as gas that’s detected during drilling or wire line logs may be residual gas after gas has migrated , hence why reported gas volumes were described by the experts as contingent resources.

The shallow gas in mou 3 was not wire line logged so there is risk, but given the volume of gas encountered during drilling it warrants flow testing. However, because it’s behind two sets of casing, there is yet to be a definitive plan on how best to perforate the two sets of casing to try to flow the gas. Worth a try as it’s probably the fastest route to cng cashflow while hunting for giant gas reserves elswhere.

Jimmy

The mou 5 well results stated that good quality wireline logs were acquired over the 50 meter jurrasic carbonates. If there was gas in that reservoir it would have been reported, and it was not.

Furthermore, there was no reported porosity in the jurrasic reservoir, but potential porosity in the area, the rns stated

“ The presence of the Domerian carbonate has now been proven but 3D seismic will be necessary to characterize the carbonate reservoir in the area.”

The March 24 presentation, slide 14 is informative as it shows the pre drill prognosis indicating that the base of the jurrasic carbonates was expected to be at approximately the same depth as the mou4 jurrasic carbonates, but because of the salt layer this is likely to have been deeper than expected.

The rns is particularly poor at communicating the well results, but what is clear is that there was no mention of high porosity carbonates or natural gas in any of the potential reservoirs. It’s hard to see the well results as anything but a dry hole.

Given the poor history of communicating well results after drilling, I believe it’s best that predator do not seek a USA share listing as litigation risk in the USA would be a real issue for unclear rns well results.

Jimmy

The independant experts reports have stated that contingent resources need to be validated by flow testing. After two perforation attempts there has been no reported flow of gas. So there is nothing to delineate at this time.

With regard to the jurrasic carbonates, the mou 4 jurrasic carbonates were to be flow tested, but then cancelled in favour of drilling mou5 which failed to find and report any natural gas.

Of course every well even dry wells provide data and indicate a way forward.

The question is, was the independant expert correct at a 12% chance of success or was prd correct at a 50% chance of success.

Jimmy

Interesting article.

https://www.upstreamonline.com/exploration/galp-reignites-talks-with-potential-namibia-partners-on-huge-mopane-discovery/2-1-1812119

Jimmy