The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Hi page of cups.
May I suggest you familiarise yourself with SDX energy who explore for and produce gas in Morocco
In particular, I wish to draw your attention to the xx rns of 5th oct that was to provide finance by way of prepayment of gas of $1.9 million on 5th oct 2023 . The flow test from the well was completed and announced on 31st October.
I believe prd may be trying to do something similar.
Jimmy
Thanks to GRH for his honesty and commitment regarding his investment on Prd.
Hopefully pg will now deliver a great flow test to justify the commitment of such shareholders, without further delay.
Jimmy
The Cpr confirms widespread gas source rocks in the licence area and a geothermal gradient of 35c per km which will generate huge volumes of gas. It also reports very effective sealing rocks in the Miocene containing blue marls and gypsum.
What we know we have extensive reservoirs, which predator report can be seen as widespread on seismic.
What we don’t know.
1. Gas water contacts.
2. Gas pressure readings in each reservoir , for completion design
3. Gas composition.
4. Permeability of each reservoir, which can be implied from flow rates.
5. Flow rates of gas and any associated water from each reservoir.
6. The reservoir connectivity between wells.
These are all critical for a commercial declaration and the granting of a concession production licence.
Predator have chosen to have lower well costs by not taking sidewall cores, reservoir pressure readings and gas and water samples, as they do offshore, instead it’s looking to get this information from flow testing.
It has the money, it’s identified potential buyers of gas at the wellhead , just got to get on with it and do it now.
Jimmy
On 6th oct prd announced planned flow testing and the start of commercial negotiations to sell gas at the wellhead.
We now know that they are waiting on a heads of terms for such gas sales, and we do not know when gas flow testing will start.
It seems that SDX has set a precedent for getting funds from gas purchaser ahead of flow testing, and this took 6 weeks from announcement of negotiations to receiving funds followed by flow test results short,y thereafter.
Maybe that’s what’s going on
Jimmy
The rns announcing the completion of drilling of mou 4 stated that a Jurassic carbonate intersection of 1139 to 1143 is to be tested, but did not say when.
Does anyone know the depth to which mou 4 was drilled as this was not stated, when it’s normal practice to say so. Why was it not stated?
Jimmy
I would be truly shocked if there was no flow tests results by year end, they have raised funds three times for flow testing.
Any farm out or third party offtake contracts will require a flow test , so I cannot see any reason not to flow test, particularly since they have the funds.
Jimmy
My reading of the latest announcements is that the Irish state will lease its own floating storage gas unit to be moored in port. So mag mell looks like it’s finished.
However, that report did also note the benefit of having an Irish gas supply , so maybe the minister might renew the corrib licence which was applied for all those years ago.
J
Ibiza ,
Most of the imported gas is used for power generation , and Morocco is increasing is building more gas powered generators and is expected to convert a power station in kenitra from using fuel oil to gas also.
Plenty of local demand, nearly all of which is dependant on lng imported to Spain and piped to Morocco.
Jimmy
The mou 1 well has identified a new reservoir section for flow testing of 300 meters gross with a net interval of 45 meters with a low gas saturation % for testing.
This interval has not previously been included in contingent resources. However, a 45 meter interval flowing at the rharb basin average of 1.1 mmcf per meter per day , would produce nearly 50 mmcf per day,
See page 10, of
https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/05/Proactive-Presentation-18-May-2023-FINAL.pdf
That would be a real barn burner as they say in the USA.
Jimmy
Thanks to Keith for his insight.
One factor that is very apparent from all of the recent rns announcements is that there is no definitive declaration that gas has indeed been found. There are mentions of reservoir intersections, elevated background gas readings but no statement saying x meters of gas bearing reservoirs were encountered . We know that no gas sampling of reservoirs has occurred which would validate electric log readings or calibrate the logs for reservoirs from which gas has been definitively sampled.
It’s understood that onhym will not allow a declaration of gas without definitive proof.
The explanation for the is situation is reported in the experts report in the recent prospectus, , page 35, which describes how a nearby well in the rharb basin with poor electric log quality readings and a 35 % gas saturation , usually considered to be water bearing, did in fact flow
gas.
The experts report endorses the nuetech log analysis.
Obviously , the definitive proof is the flow testing, and any commercial discussions with either offtake purchasers or farm in partners will benefit from a strong flow test.
The difficulty of log interpretation in these reservoirs is also validated by chariot results for anchois 2 well which initially announced 100 meters of net pay reservoir which was later upgraded several months later to 150 meters of net pay.
I will post later on a large reservoir section in mou 1 with gas saturations of 35% , not previously included in proven gas volumes.
This is important.
Jimmy
The issue for prd and its nomad and non executive directors is that by delaying the notification to shareholders of not flow testing, they allowed a false market to develop during that period.
Of course all will be forgiven if mou 3 flows strongly, if not they are on weak ground.
J
GRH,
I think you are probably correct.
However, do you know the water saturation levels in the mou 3 fan reservoir , and could that be the reason for a delay till Trinidad was secured.?
Paul has mentioned previously the difficulty of log interpretations in these reservoirs, which might read like water but are probably gas, just a possibility to explain the delay.
J
I have read the rns again and the explanation for not progressing to flow test is that prd wanted a gas sales memorandum of understanding in place regarding gas sales to be in place before they test.
Obviously, that’s an ideal situation, but from a negotiation point of view, a memorandum of understanding has no legal enforceability, and in any event gas sales will be subject development environmental impact reports and production licence.
This excuse is about as good as the fact that previously they could not test because they had not received an explosive transport licence for the perforation.
Prd, need to issue a proper corporate presentation to include the results of the nuetech log analysis of the mou 3 and mou 4 wells to re assure investors.
Jimmy
Very disappointed by this mornings rns, like so many here.
It’s hard to believe that a board of directors could issue such rns regarding testing at mou .
Predator have raised equity on three occasions on each occasion part of the funds were to be used for flow testing, yet it has not happened.
My reading of the situation, which could obviously be wrong, is that predator are lining up the next project in case the mou project does not work out.for whatever reason, an insurance policy if you like.
The board of directors need to take collective responsibility for rns announcements and the stock exchange nomad needs to actively supervise its client .
Because 3 wells have been reported as having found gas I believe it’s there in volumes, if there had been just one well, I would have sold my shares by now.
Jimmy
Great discussion regarding source rock gas generation volumes .
However, from an economic perspective it’s all about recoverable gas volumes of gas trapped in reservoirs.
I previously posted there is approx 1.2 tcf in the mou fan and mou A sands proven in mou 1 and mou 3 over an area shown in seismic of 30 to 50km2.
Those calculations assumed a 70% gas fill , as the gas water contacts have not yet been to be proven so if the gas generated by the source rocks are so high, there may be more gas fill than the 70% I assumed.
The really high upside is to proove if the 240 meters of Jurassic carbonates anticipated for mou 4 were in fact encountered but only 2 meters were gas gas bearing and the remainder may have been below the gas water contact, which I suspect, but do not know because that has not been released. If correct, then there is a giant prospect to be appraised up dip of mou 4 proven gas in the carbonates, perhaps another 4 tcf, but need more information of what was found in mou 4 carbonates.
Lots of low risk high potential here, particularly at these share prices.
Jimmy