Member Info for Jimmy23

I am puzzled by GRH latest thoughts that mou5 was meant delineate the mou5 structure.

I would have thought that the best strategy for shareholders is to first make a discovery, validate it by a flow test if wireline logs are ambiguous and then delineate,

This maximises shareholder value and minimises shareholder dilution.

Delineating before discovery could be a long term road to success with lots of equity dilution.

J

Spain currently import 16 bcm per year of lng, with an almost empty gas pipeline from morroco to Spain it would make sense for Morocco to send any surplus gas to Spain by that pipeline .

An lng liquification plant costs several billion dollars and these costs would be avoided and a higher price achieved if the gas is exported through an existing pipeline to Spain.

See.

https://rbac.com/spains-role-as-a-natural-gas-importer-and-re-exporter/

Jimmy

The Namibian authorities closed all applications and would not accept a new application till April 2025.

J

Keith,

I believe the link you posted to be inaccurate reporting.

It simply does not make sense to build an lng liquification plant in Morocco when there is a huge capacity available to export gas via the main pipeline to Spain.

Jimmy

Another big oil discovery in the orange basin in Namibia

See.

https://www.euro-petrole.com/bp-rhino-resources-reports-results-of-capricornus-1-x-well-in-namibia-s-orange-basin-n-i-28354

The significance of this is its directly south of the kudu field and chariots blocks it’s applied for are directly north of the kudu field with the same water depth.

The flow rate of 11,000 bond from 38 meters of net reservoir is pretty impressive and indicates high porosity and permeability.

Hopefully news on chariots application very soon.

Jimmy

The moroccon s are hedging their bets, they are building an lng import facility, not a lng liquification plant for export, which will supply the three new gas powered power generators.

If high volumes of gas found in Morocco to be commercial they would supply the local gas powered power generators stations and export surplus to Europe via the main gas pipeline to Spain.

Jimmy

The guercif basin has undergone two periods of basin inversion since the Triassic, so for Triassic prospects it will be very important to have a salt top seal in place above the Triassic. Prd report that Triassic salt had migrated and was found above the jurrasic section of mou5.

3D seismic will be required to fully map and depth convert the salt and the prospects that lie below it.

Not sure if Triassic reservoirs are yet proven in the guercif licence area.

There is a lot of work and several years required to mature Triassic prospects for exploration drilling.

Jimmy

Highland Matt.

We know that mou5 encountered its jurrasic carbonates target deeper than expected and that prd see potential updip and 12 km away from mou5.

I interpret that as the mou 5 carbonates did not have reservoir porosity at mou5 location.

The wireline logs would be very definitive if porosity was found and it would be price sensitive information requiring disclosure if reservoir porosity was found in the carbonates.

All exploration wells provide valuable data and I am sure that mou5 has pointed towards further potential, but it will need 3D seismic and a partner to finance it.

With regard to the mou fan reservoir, clearly it had huge potential reserves, but prd have prioritised 20 bcf of shallow reservoirs in mou3 which have not been logged ,ahead of the mou fan larger reserve potential for flow testing,

which indicates to me the now very higher risk mou fan reservoir after two attempts at flow testing which both failed to flow sustainable gas flows.

If shallow gas in mou 3 is the fastest route to cashflow then it’s right that prd focus on that priority in these current markets.

Jimmy

Keith

Suggest you read the mou5 results. Rns.

J

My understanding of the possible basic error is the conversion of seismic time measurements to a forecast actual measured depth.

Prd stated that the jurrasic carbonates reservoir was encountered deeper than expected, which I have interpreted as being below the gas encountered at mou4.

However, it also appears now that the jurrasic carbonated in mou5 were not of reservoir quality , hence the seismic Avo analysis indicating five potential reservoir sections was also not accurate.

So two major seismic interpretation problems.

Jimmy

It’s standard farm out practice that if farminee withdraws the assigned interest reverts to farmin or, chariot.

J

Surfit,

Neither a1 or A2 have been flow tested.

The A 2 well is suspended, so could be rendered for flow testing and later used for production.

Jimmy

Hi surety,

I believe chariot are going for the southern blocks where prospectivity has been proven in the deeper water.

Migration from source rocks is better to the west and in deeper water than where chariot drilled previously. Prospects are giant billion bbl size and a high success rate also, with prospects in large stratigraphic traps with a distinct seismic profile.

Jimmy

It’s certainly the correct move to try to flow test the shallow gas in mou3 as this is most likely the quickest route to cashflow and hence reducing the ongoing pump and dump equity dilutions. However, this is not without risk as the shallow horizons were not wireline logged and hence the evidence of gas is based on the mud logging results. The added complication is that such horizons are behind two sets of casing which will need to be perforated. It was previously suggested that such zones could have been perforated by sand jet and so it’s a puzzle as to why they were not perforated when the sand jet equipment was on site after the failed flow testing of the deeper mou 3 reservoirs.

Anyhow , production cashflow should be the priority as this will then buy time to allow the farm out for 3D and mou6 well, which will take several years before drilling.

With regard to mou5 , one explanation for the oil slick in the mud pit was that the well drilled through a source rock that was mature for gas condensate, as per the seismic profile in the presentation, however, as the basin was subject to inversion twice, any gas and condensate was at high risk of migration from mou5. The key issue now is whether the jurrasic carbonates had porosity or not. The delay in announcing detailed drill results would suggest to me that there was poor porosity in the jurrasic at mou5 but that rock cuttings are being studied to see if they would provide evidence for porosity updip.

Jimmy

Pg is in possession of price sensitive information regarding the actual results of mou5 so he cannot sell as you suggest at this time.

Jimmy

There are a few key pieces of information to know for mou5 to be de risked updip.

1. What depth was the jurrasic carbonates encountered in mou5, we know it was deeper than expected, but was it deeper than the equivalent in mou4. I believe it was.

2. Is there pressure communication between mou 4 and mou5 , if so and if mou5 is deeper than mou4 then a potential gas water contact has been established , if not then a fault may seperate the reservoirs and the reservoirs could be compartmentalised, requiring lots of 3D and appraisal wells.

3. What porosity is the carbonates , this was released two days after mou4 , yet two weeks after mou5 drilled has not been announced. My view is that because there is no news, it’s likely to be poor and rock cuttings are being analysed to see if it might be better up dip.

4. The new 30 meter sand is interesting, but we do not know the net sand thickness nor the porosity,which are important for upside potential. No gas shows reported so I am assuming below the gas water contact. The sand was unexpected and not seen on seismic so it may not be laterally extensive. 3D seismic would help.

Jimmy

It’s great to see the transcript.

In summary pg appears to me to think that perforating shallow gas in mou3 , which was not wire line logged, is lower risk than swabbing the perforated gas zones in mou3 with bigger potential reserves.

Perhaps there is a problem with the deeper zone but he will not say what.

Jimmy

I agree that the priority for shareholders is to get to positive cashflow asap , to stop ongoing shareholder dilution. The mou 3 shallow gas at 21 bcf is small compared to what many expected, but it’s a quick route to cashflow.

There were two objectives for the mou5 carbonates well, find a thick quality reservoir and proove gas updip of mou4.

Based on that interview all we know is 50 meters of jurrasic carbonate were found and that the carbonates were older and deeper than expected. No mention of gas saturations or fracture porosity. He did mention that he needed to use satellite imagery to identify fracture zones updip in order to farm out. That sounds to me like no gas and poor porosity in the jurrasic carbonates.

The well was completed and logged by 14 March and 12 days later he still has not reported if gas was or was not found.

Mou5 looks very dry to me now.

Jimmy

Where did the 800 bcf volume get mentioned.

J

Mk111.

I dont believe I ever called mou4 a dry hole.

I actually bought more shares after mou4 before selling them when prd decided to change its mind and not flow test mou4