London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

My apologies, after checking the link it appears it directs to the wrong page, hopefully the link below will take you to the correct page, should be about 12 posts down, sorry for any inconvenience caused.

https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/gulf-keystone-GKP/share-chat?page=5661&xref=chatnav_i_6_t

Jimmy23, I suggest that you look at the capabilities of hyperspectral imaging, my understanding of RSDD-H is that it directly detects hydrocarbon activity by measuring the impact on the immediate environment, as per the quote in my previous post.
That environmental impact being directly correlated to the quantity of hydrocarbons, more hydorcarbons the bigger the impact.
It is therefore quite obvious that for there to be hydrocarbon activity at the surface the geology of the source, reservoir and seal has to be in place.

The Entrada Energy PDF was provided as yet another piece of evidence of the veracity of RSDD-H.

Yes MOU-1 has already been drilled but MOU-2 is yet to be drilled, GRH has publicly stated his thoughts on the outcome of this drill.

I would like to add that I do not know if GRH has made use of RSDD-H to form his opinion, however I would be surprised if he has not made use of this technoloy, additionally I do not know if PRD have made use of RSDD-H to help identify an optimum place to drill.

GRH, like many others have already posted I am saddened to hear about your decision to no longer post on the BB but it is understandable that you have chosen to take this route.

Your extremely valuable time and energy that you put into each and every post is wasted due to the 'air time' that certain imbeciles obtain through their posts that pushes your posts further down the page, resulting in that time and energy being wasted.

Your frustrations I empathise with and fully understand, and I apologise now if I go too far with the following personal thought:

You have chosen, for your own reasons, to keep some of your information about the licence that PRD holds private. I think one of those reasons is the fact that if you were to present this information on a public BB the share price would jump, and not just by tens of pence but by pounds from its current valuation and that could be problematic at this stage pre drill.tests.sales

As for me, I have carried out a lot of research into the use of hyperspectral imaging and the algorithms applied in the identification of hydrocarbon energy and therefore whether or not an on land drill is likely to be commercially viable. Your own detailed post on gkp of December 2011 was a very public evidencing of the success levels achieved.

So as GRH has clearly stated in his opinion there is 15% risk with the MOU-2 drill, Lonny has stated that there is gas there, PG has stated that there is a 10% chance of 1000 feet of hydrocarbons,

What if the likelihood of 1000 feet of hydrocarbon column is greater than this %, and not only that the 15% risk that was stated is due to false negatives and not false positives.

If GRH were to post the above, what do you think would happen to the share price?
Does any reader of these BB seriously think that after getting GKP and SOU drills 100% correct that the share price would be less than 10pps? and yet you still call him a ramper.

As for what was said about his wife, that is beyond evil and whoever has said anything negative should be more than ashamed of themselves, I truly despair at the mentality of some people who are only commenting out of what appears to be greed or spite or a combination of the both, shame on you.

And thank you GRH for all you have been good enough to share with us.

micktrick, if its full of CNG you won't be able to put any CO2 in it ;p

Seriously though I think there are several issues, safety, logisitcs, quality, infrastructure and cost.
CO2, depending on its use will be transported as either a liquid or solid.

CNG will obviously be transported as gas, if you look at the image of the truck on page 3 of the presentation you will see several large cylinders, how those cylinders are connected I am not sure, but I imagine that there will be a single point which will be used for both filling and distributing to the customer.

Delivery, will a single customer take part, all, or several trucks of CNG?

If it is the case that one customer will take several lorry loads at once and you think great lets fill those with the liquid CO2, you encounter other problems, there are, I believe, differences in the design of cylinders for containing liquid CO2 when compared with CNG cylinders.

So even if you could and wanted to do it you then have the following issues:

Safety, there are certain regulations (and rightly so) involved in the transportation of these products, one for instance is labelling, you should clearly see a CNG warning label in the aforementioned image, to then transport liquified CO2 would require swapping the lableling over.

You can of course get around this somewhat by transporting lots of smaller full cylinders being unloaded and loading the empties onto the truck, the problem then arises with where to put the full liquid CO2 cylinders.

So infrastructure and cost, you need to capture the CO2 in the first place, store it and wait for the truck to come along and collect it, the size of the businesses vary, therefore their CO2 ouptut varies, you could well end up with CO2 being vented to the atmosphere anyway before it is worthwhile there being sufficient volumes of CO2 to collect.

As Paul stated in the presentation those businesses are not very competitive, burdening them with the additional cost of this infrastructure is going to make their products even more expensive.

At the MOU site, if CO2 were to be delivered there, you would need the infrastructure to store the CO2 after unloading the CO2 at the MOU site the truck would then need to undergo a process to ensure that any CO2 left was removed, perhaps venting to atmosphere, not sure if this would be sufficient and what level CO2 remaining would be considered a contaminent.

This is of course if there is oil in the licence area that would benefit from the use of EOR.

Please note that the above is only a few thoughts, I have not dealt with liquid CO2 cylinders for over 20 years now so some of the above may be complete rubbish.

Hi colon

There have been a number of people bashing GRH's contributions to this board, they have done so without backing their position with any facts. GRH always supplies facts.

Furthermore GRH is the only person I know of on these boards who is known, not only by name but also address. His twitter feed is also known

I thought that by posting that GKP post, in which GRH very publicly stated his thoughts on the results that GKP would see from the licence (all of which were right), l would provide some basis to help people provide a weighting to what GRH says on these boards and on twitter.

One of GRH's more controversial postings is the one linked below which is a calculation of the potential value of what PRD have, I say controversial because the numbers are off the scale and people have been knocking it without anyone being able to refute it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PredatorOilandGasPRD/collection/e3c25c9d-d0d2-47a3-b237-97628e817afe/

As you are new here I am sure you can see why some people might consider this ramping, but if that were the case then the share price would be a lot higher now, surely the definition of ramping, however the calculations, are based on information detailed within RNS', which as I say, they have not been disproved and as you say you do not know what is dross and what can be trusted.

Additionally the GKP post would give the curious somewhere to start their research, the images you ask about I do not think are available any more but this PDF you may consider very intersesting (in particular pages 10 & 11):
https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/bbooks/2017/08_Aug/Docket/2017-020_274-02_Hewitt/2017-020_20170912.1_RespondentsExhibits.pdf

It might interest you to know that I was invested in SOU when GRH provided warnings about being invested their, again he was bashed by various people but he was completely correct. (he saved several people a lot of money)

As for GKP I was not actually invested there but know that they owed a lot of money and the PIs were all but 100% wiped out via debt for equity swap, something GRH has warned against on here (PRD has no debt!).

I hope you understand why I posted my notes, in part as a reference for people like yourself to make a judgemnent as to whether or not you can trust GRH's input or not or if you need to do more research.

I hope that goes someway to answering your questions

Lastly their are other posters on these boards, such as KeithOz and Wackmeister who also provide some very good information and research.

PART 1

nearlycertain
20 Dec '11 - 16:27 - 141499 of 602059
Posting GRH's iii post again (so I can reference in header):

All

Longer term holders may recall a fairly impromptu ...but very senior level ...ceremony at the SH1 well site...
it was upon the first discovery of oil
and it has been all but lost in the sea of noise that sometimes dominates this board

That is a pity...

as, at that ceremony... it was suggested that the oil was 'unmeasure-able'...

perhaps some newer holders might even be unaware of that statement

I hope to show you WHAT 'unmeasurable' actually looks like

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My apologies for the slightly lengthy post...
especially as I said that I would post no more ...on Wifely orders pre-Christmas

But...I have permission for JUST this final one ...

For those who are not interested in the 'PRE-AMBLE'...

and who could blame you?

may I suggest that you skip straight to the 'MEAT' section

I have thought long and hard about putting a pre-amble in here at all...
but... were I to merely put out the second part of this post,
there would be more questions than there might be with this longer version...

The following represents my personal opinion only...

so here goes

PRE -AMBLE

In all of the post below, I bow to the MUCH greater knowledge of several posters here...
some of whom have held very senior and successful positions within the oil industry...

I recognise that, as a non-scientist and as a mere businessman and investor,
what I know about this industry can be written on the head of a pin or two

but I speak as I find etc....

As some here will know, I have been investing in oil shares since very late in 2008...
and in volume since 2009...
and, like many here, I have had my winners and a few losers...

I hold GKP...

somewhat later in this post you are going to see WHY

Now....leaving aside GKP as a rather special case ...
I regard the E&P sector per se as a very tough place for investors to make real money...
(yes, of course GKP is tough also...but for rather different reasons)

and IMO that is greatly due to the 'success' rates on drilling wildcats on seismic alone...

Part 2

My research indicates that about 1 in 12 wildcats become commercial successes...
some people like to quote 1 in 5 or so...
but I do not believe that to be correct
as it appears to reflect the re-categorisation of poor drilling results

This poor rate of success leads DIRECTLY to many companies in this sector issuing a seemingly endless number of new shares...
thus diluting the existing equity holders....often at lower and lower prices...
we have all seen many instances of that effect...
to my simple mind...dilution appears as a drug within this sector

a couple of years ago, I coined the phrase....'issuing shares like confetti'

the phenomenon was more recently described to me by a very senior Nomad... as the 'waterfall' effect

When I came into this sector, I did much research...
and soon developed a view that there must be better ways of finding hydrocarbons...than seismic ALONE

Please understand that I am not knocking seismic...I am a great fan of it...but used for the correct purpose

I postulated a theory to another poster that the US had probably developed ...or at least used... oil mapping from aircraft...

Through countless meetings and contacts, I eventually met with long term and very senior oil exploration people
(one such was a GM in BP's International & Frontiers E&P Division and country Vice President Exploration of various BP operations)
who had, many years before, developed ...jointly with a group of Russian scientists ...just the technology I was postulating...
albeit utilising satellite rather than aircraft-gathered images
(vast numbers of such images need to be interrogated for the all-important evidence of live hydrocarbons to emerge...
such evaluation is a truly mammoth task)

The technology works by examining physical changes at surface level...
changes in the manner in which vegetation performs when subjected to the constant barrage of chemical 'soup' emanating from the upward migration of hydrocarbons
(MICRO seepage...NOT please to be confused with seeps that are visible to the naked eye)...
and the effects upon the cementation of rocks where no such vegetation exists

(I am told by a senior geologist that such phenomenon is well recognised within the minerals mining sector)

They had achieved startling technical success
and, whilst they had achieved wealth for themselves...
that degree of wealth IMO did not correctly reflect the sheer immensity of what they have

I put that down to two main factors...

Resistance from the extant E&P community ...the closed shop approach...
ie resistance to change, bearing in mind that seismic was around at the time when many senior oil executives were learning their trade...
(imagine the initial conversation were seismic to be invented today...'shall we bang the ground and see what we can infer')
and a business model that revolved around a pure 'service ' approach

Part 3

So...a colleague and I ...he is well known over at the other place....
having considered MANY business models, entered into an International alliance with them...
whereby we would change the business approach...and the nature and scale of the revenue stream

For almost a year (it is not a fast process for reasons I have partly outlined above)
we have been signing up E&P companies to our model...(I dislike the term ' E&P' as, surely, what is of great interest to investors is 'D' for Discovery)
which essentially reduces the up-front costs for the client companies and we believe greatly improves their chances of drilling success...
whilst enabling us to enjoy financial success ...via participatory rights...in various exploration activities

As far as I am concerned, it represents the creation of a 'virtual' oil company

We never ...or at least very rarely... suggest that drilling take place without relevant seismic...
but the key word is 'relevant'
ie it is surely sensible to throw better quality seismic...over much reduced areas of GREAT interest...
rather that using it as a primary oil finding technique

Of course...many here know that seismic cannot positively identify the PRESENCE of hydrocarbons....per se...
but rather the types and forms of the sub surface structures that MIGHT contain hydrocarbons

I consider that such point goes to the heart of the CoS issue

The satellite-enabled technology I describe provides a totally DIRECT indication of hydrocarbons...
thus very different to traditional techniques

The marketing has taken much time...and continues...
and it is early days and these drills also take time...
not least of which is time expended in the licencing arrangements...

but we are hoping to see some 'live firing' drilling in 2012 on several locations...
'live firing' meaning that... in the success case... we make money out of each such success via the business model (not as investors)

It has been entirely up to the client or partner companies to decide if they wish to actually go public
with the fact that they have signed satellite contracts...
and my view overall is that they might be advised to keep quiet about it for OBVIOUS commercial reasons...
one Company though has made such information public...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously ...in addition to our BUSINESS activities as noted above
we have also been using such technology to better inform our own INVESTMENT decisions

yes...HOW I wish that I had met these guys back in 2008

and I have personally witnessed quite startling successes...
to the extent that, whilst the Company and its scientists will claim a somewhat lower CoS ...
I can tell you that , in respect of the most recent 25 predictions/analyses, over 85% have been correct
it has been

Part 4

Of course, we have audit trails of things such as telling quoted companies in advance that their drill would be a duster
(among others...a high profile drill in Kurdistan ignored our data...hugely to the cost of the shareholders in that company)...
and analysing an un-related duster that cost me (it was before I met the satellite guys!) a large amount of money

as recently as the Mayfair Hotel presentation by GKP I showed a satellite oil map of Shaikan to a person from GKP..
and I told him that, in our opinion, SH4 would be EXTREMELY good...
he emailed me some while later ...AFTER the first RNS about the preliminary results from that drill....
to ask me HOW I had been so confident as to give him an ADVANCE prediction re SH4 that was SO accurate....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEAT

OK...so what...you ask?

Well, we have persuaded the scientists to allow us to post in public...for the first time...
satellite OIL images of Shaikan and part of Ber Bahr....

I am also posting a purely topographical MAP of three of the blocks...
obtained from a space shuttle programme
but with the block boundaries super-imposed for your ease of reference

Please understand that the OIL images are NOT in any way to be compared with the interpretation maps you see in various presentations...
IE they are not the product of a chap with a pencil or two

but massively important 'live' images...

There need to be a few conditions please ...but only a few...

As to Ber Bahr... it will be 'only' the south eastern block on the BB licenced acreage...showing the drill location for BB1

in the view of the scientists, that BB drill appears to be located sub optimally
(it is not dissimilar perhaps in relative placement to SH1 really within the Shaikan structure ...and look what happened there)
BUT...the scientists told me that they feel that BB1 should contain oil reservoirs...
although the technology cannot predict porosity/permeability depths of the accumulations...

and frankly ...if BB1 comes good ...
then one needs to look carefully at the rest of that southern structural map to see the upside there ...

it appears QUITE GOOD

and that EXCLUDES all the rest of the BB acreage and structures...

please bear in mind that for obvious reasons of commerciality,

I AM ONLY POSTING VERY LOW GRADE/SMALL SCALE/HIGH LEVEL IMAGES...

as the very detailed stuff still has great commercial value to me and my colleagues

but I can tell you that black is thought to be 'good'...
and we do see rather a lot of deep black here

I must also say that I am not able to answer questions ...
partly as I simply do not have time to engage in MUCH debate...
and partly for reasons of commercial sensitivity...I hope that you will understand

It is possible that my colleague in this venture will be prepared to talk with people...within commercial confines/on a limited basis...
p

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Kasjnaton

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)