Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
@Zebra. You are mistaken in that you are confusing duration of individual sections of the Guercif (one F) Exploration Licence with the lifetime of the Licence itself, which runs until 2028. May I refer you to the most recent Prospectus: https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/08/20230810-Project-Allossaurus-Prospectus-FINAL.pdf
from p.33
"The Guercif PA initially ran for 8 years split into an Initial Period of 30 months, which commenced on 19 March 2019; a First Extension Period of 36 months duration; and a Second Extension Period also of 30 months. After each licence period there is an opportunity to withdraw from the licence, without entering the next licence period. A one year extension to the initial period of the Guercif PA was granted as a consequence of the restrictions that resulted from the COVID pandemic. As a result the Guercif PA was extended to 9 instead of 8 years with the initial period extended to 42 months."
PRD have completed the work required under each stage of the Exploration Licence, the request for an extension to the current stage is a formality. They are now intending to apply for an Exploitation Licence within the next couple of months, 4 years ahead of schedule. You will also find further detail on p.99 of the same document, which is p.6 of the CPR.
@IG said: "They specifically said though that the ITR will be released before testing commences."
RNS said: "The Company will use it best endeavours to publish the ITR before the Phase 1 rigless testing commences." You do realise that an INDEPENDENT Technical Report is written by someone outside the company?
@JH said: "Why O why can't this company ever keep to a single timeline?"
Please provide your evidence that testing is not already underway.
@Ibiza, you ask if we have oil or are just assuming we have oil. The answer is we have oil.
For proof, may I refer you (and any other reasonably recent folks)
1. To an old X post of mine from a couple of years ago, when it was still called Twitter :
https://twitter.com/KQuick20704342/status/1504653923541393408
and
2. to the SLR 30th January 2002 CPR, p.9 :"The results of the 2006-07 surveys (Geo-Microbial Technologies Inc, March/April 2007) identify several hydrocarbon types in the Guercif basin: thermogenic dry gas and some condensate around the GRF-1 well; oil and gas/condensate around the MSD-1 well, over the Jezira anticline and in southwest; and oil
in all other anomalies. Particularly interesting is the abundant seepage in a large area around the TAF-1X well which appears to be oil rather than gas. The anomalies cover a larger area and have higher oil concentrations than the anomalies elsewhere. These surveys confirm there is an active hydrocarbon source system in the basin. "
I should point out that there is no oil pipeline system in Morocco, and only a mothballed refinery away on the Atlantic coast. For these reasons, oil exploration & production will almost certainly be left to a large company with deep pockets and a long timeframe - think of this as an added sweetener to the price that PRD may be able to negotiate for the Guercif gas assets. Quite correctly, the focus is monetising the discovered gas.
Jeez, how many times do we have to say it?
@redmonkeydave: You said "I don’t however agree with people that write off a sudden near 10% drop as nothing " and "I never sow seeds of doubt". Of course you don't Dave.
Facts - closing prices last 5 days:
11.5 / 12 - Tuesday 16th
11.5 / 12.5 - Wednesday 17th
12.2 / 12.7 - Thursday 18th
11.5 / 12.5 - Friday 19th
11.5 / 12 - Monday 22nd
This is a very tightly held share - tiny variations such as this are completely normal. We will shortly have an ITR & flow rates - the above bent halfpenny wiggles will be totally irrelevant.
I don't normally comment on the share price, but it seems certain people here are trying to present misinformation. On Friday 19th, the closing spread was 11.5/12.5p. Then just after the close there was a small (£445) uncrossing trade at 13p. This sometime happens when someone has to square off their book in a hurry. As I write, the spread is 12 / 12.5p., which is slightly up on last week's close. So, nothing has dropped off a cliff, except your credibility.
You would also want detailed analysis of the well logs to positively identify a viable horizon before you start expensive testing. That could take a couple of weeks. Flow & pressure testing is done with different equipment and different specialist crews from drilling - including above ground where a CTU or even a winch is used, rather than an expensive rig. Wells close together are often simultaneously pressure-tested, to ascertain continuity of the reservoirs, so you would drill a batch of wells, then test all together.
For those following up on GRH's ref to 'ANZ-7", this is a typo. ANZ is a well-known antipodean bank. ONZ is an acronym for Ouled N'Zala, a prospect within the Sebou Basin originally drilled by Circle Oil in 2008. ONZ-7 was completed successfully by SDX at the start of 2018.
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2018/01/239280/discovery-morocco
About 20 years ago, FT Alphaville gave a bunch of chart 'experts' a section of a real chart and asked them to forecast where it went next - the majority got it wrong. My cynical view is that certain sections of the financial services industry make a lot of money selling charting/trading systems to credulous customers, and then generate lots of money by those customers making frequent trades predicated on chart movements.
Immediately to the left of 'Share Chat' above, click on 'Share Charts', then the wiggly line icon at the top of the left side - this is "Indicators". These are supposed to be mathematical formulae that help you decide where the price is going next. Unfortunately, they are frequently contradictory, and the range of options is amusingly large - just under 'A' you have Acceleration bands; Acceleration distribution; AO; APO; Aroon; Aroon oscillator, and ATR.
Hence my not-very-serious remark. No doubt there will be howls of protest at my ignorance.
Hi Jimmy, I would welcome your thoughts (and anybody else's) on exactly what might have been drilled towards the bottom of MOU-4. The RNSs of 11th & 13th July do not appear to give us the whole story.
11/7: "The top Jurassic carbonate objective was reached at 1135 metres TVD MD, 253 metres deeper than the estimated depth pre-drill based on no well control. A thick section of 175 metres of claystones capped the Jurassic carbonate section " and
"The speculative pre-drill Jurassic carbonate horizon has now been validated in MOU-4. Seismic remapping and evaluation of the Jurassic using the new MOU-4 well control point and data yet to be analysed from the well will be required to further de-risk the Jurassic objective."
13/7: [NuTech analysis shows likely gas sands at] "1139 to 1143 metres TVD MD, including the top of the Jurassic carbonates. 2 metres of likely gas reservoir with average porosity 19.9% (maximum 20.6%) and average gas saturation 56% (maximum 73%)."
Then on 30th August we were told: "A field trip is being planned for the autumn to evaluate the reservoir potential of the entire interval of interest in Jurassic surface exposures to the south of the Guercif licence area. Geochemical source rock quality and maturation studies, including evidence for migrated gas, for the Jurassic section penetrated in the MOU-4 well are expected to be completed in September."
So we know that at least 175m of claystones, plus 4m of other strata which includes 2m identified by NuTech as gas charged, giving a minimum of 179m Jurassic, has been drilled. Importantly, what we don't know is the TD for MOU-4. If MOU-4 was drilled deeper than the originally stated target of the Jurassic carbonate reef, apparently found at 1143m, maybe it encountered further interesting Jurassic sections, and it is these that are being evaluated as oil/NGL source rocks.
I was a little puzzled by the 12th January RNS mention of "MOU-4: Thin Jurassic dolomitic reservoirs" as intervals for Phase 2 testing. Does this mean that the original Jurassic carbonate reef structure is dolomitised? Or is reference being made to a different structure - either within the 175m of claystones above the target, or strata drilled at an unknown depth beneath the reef?
It makes no sense to be evaluating a gas-bearing stratum for its potential to be an oil source rock, so I assume they must be talking about something deeper. It is also clear that the Jurassic TWT maps in the August 2023 CPR need to be completely redrawn, possibly after further seismic reprocessing. I am curious if this will be addressed in the forthcoming MOU-area ITR, or whether they need more time to integrate:
*updated Jurassic seismic
*incorporation of MOU-4 Jurassic petrology
*results of Jurassic field mapping.
Additionally, Cube has stated that HSSI indicates oil & NGLs at MOU-NE.
It is too early to be making speculative calculations as to what MOU-NE might hold.
Hi Ibiza, very sensible questions. I'm probably first to read, so I'll try to answer.
Wha t will the report cover? The ITR we are expecting in the next couple of weeks will be based on the MOU-area CPR produced for the Prospectus last year, but with the addition of hard data from MOU-3 & MOU-4, including the various external studies done by outfits such as NuTech. I am unsure if this ITR will make reference to MOU-NE Jurassic prospect - although MOU-4 intersected the edge, and a field study of Jurassic outcrops has taken place, I don't know if this is in Scorpion's brief. So the answer to the question is that it is my guess that they will primarily appraise the volumetrics of the MOU-Fan and the shallow reservoir sands only - the remaining areas equivalent to scores of North Sea blocks are unlikely to be mentioned other than in passing.
The 2023 CPR was extremely conservative, since it did not include the drilling results from MOU-3 & 4, where results substantially exceeded pre-drill expectations - unexpected shallow overpressured sands and much greater than anticipated deep reservoir thickness. So I am fully confident there will be a substantial increase in declared resource, both Contingent & Prospective. Whether the ITR will show more or less volume than some on this BB expect remains to be seen.
Will this independent review change with flow testing? Almost certainly, but since we don't know what the ITR will say, nor the results of the flow tests, no one can say at this stage if any revision will be up or down - such is the nature of exploration, risks can only be minimised, not eliminated.
Will gas flow at a commercial rate? I would not be invested here if I did not think that the combination of huge, overpressured, high porosity & permeability and quite probably linked reservoirs will provide commercial gas in a quantity to boggle the western imagination. My main concern has always been the friability of some of the reservoir sands, but well-established methods exist to prevent clogging of the well by sand influx. This potential problem is the complete opposite of low poroperm conditions, which is when you would consider fracking.
It is my guess that the flow rates achieved by Sandjet in the 2nd phase will be higher than currently projected. Methodology, in his Reddit post, calculated the average flow rate per vertical metre of reservoir in the Rharb Basin (SDX data) to be a little over 1 mmcfgd. Sandjet perforates more deeply, and reduces potential compaction of the borehole wall, thus allowing more gas to flow. Additionally, PRD has overpressured reservoirs - my conclusion is that we will achieve a greater flow rate per vertical reservoir metre than has SDX.
Risks will always remain; it is each individual investor's responsibility to evaluate those risks against the potential reward.
Someone asked the difference between an ITR & a CPR. An ITR is produced primarily for company management, to give an independent take on the project under review. A CPR has third parties as the target audience - private investors, institutional investors and institutions providing loans, etc. For this reason, a CPR tends to follow a more standardised format, and can be (but not always) more comprehensive. An ITR should still be a reliable source of information for PIs - no consultancy is going to produce a report that could in any way be detrimental to their reputation.
@MitchMore. Welcome to the BB as poster, rather than just one of the many, many lurkers 😁. A number of us in offline discussions have previously come to the same conclusions as you, but you understand such things should not be stated publicly by someone with a readily recognisable identity, and certainly not by company management. For those who continue to blame the delays to testing on PRD management incompetence, I suggest you digest MM's post yesterday, then with 'the doors of perception having been cleansed,' re-read the relevant sections of the RNSs of 7th March 2023, 5th October, and 30th November (x2). Also look at this meme from Cube:
https://twitter.com/__The_Cube__/status/1730545795156320560/photo/1
PRD: Doing alright, getting good grades, the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.
There, William Blake & TimBuk3 in the same post.