Member Info for KeithOz

Tullow's full year results out today. No mention whatsoever of Orinduik - that at least got a one-liner in the previous interims. Today it says:

"Tullow also continues to focus on unlocking value from the substantial prospective resource base in the emerging basins of Guyana and Argentina, while seeking to mitigate capital exposure from historical work commitments. In 2022, commitments include the Beebei-Potaro exploration well in the Kanuku Block in Guyana, which will target the Cretaceous light oil play of the Guyana-Suriname Basin, as well as seismic acquisition over Block MLO 122 in Argentina"

So if no mention at all, is the intention to "unlock value" by selling down their Orinduik interest?

Extension of agreement conditions for a further 3 months.
Graham Lyon, Sound Energy's Executive Chairman, commented:
"The progress on the various conditions over the last 90 days is encouraging to all particularly the interest of local and international funding partners financing"

Confirmation of funding interest bodes well for PRD.

7D - on Feb 4th, Cube said "Ps. Lets say, for arguments sake and a general lightening of the very serious mood... 20th May
for some champagne and caviar. Not that I like caviar, but I eat it to show off that I can, as do most coffs in 89 Pall Mall. "

I don't recall any May deadline suggested elsewhere, indeed it seems a little early to me for anything concrete to celebrate.

As several posters have remarked here, this is a new one. Since oil seeps are mentioned, I originally assumed this was in the immediate area of the TAF-1X well drilled by Phillips in 1979 - this was apparently targeting Jurassic reefs or oolite banks. The Geo-Microbial Tech survey in 2007 confirmed surface oil seeps in this location.

However, Tizroutine is some 6km NW of TAF-1X, so is unlikely to be the same target formation. Both these locations are shown in the small inset map on p.21 of the 2019 Corporate Presentation. The village of Tizroutine is some 45km NW of Guercif. I can not find any other references to this location in my PRD material, so this does indeed appear to be new to most of us - perhaps those lucky individuals who have had sight of hyperspectral or multispectral data may wish to add a comment.

Graham, I am aware that Peterhouse has a pretty good reputation as a smaller outfit, but wasn't aware that they were majority owned by Libank - but is this actually a good thing?

While LiBank may well have Middle Eastern clients that could be good contacts for PRD, they are a loss making organisation with net assets of only around US$ 50M, despite their claim that they take stakes in the clients they advise. They are supervised by the Banque du Liban, the Central Bank of Lebanon, which is itself mostly already gone down the pan with the rest of the Lebanese economy; in the estimation of many Lebanon is almost a failed state.

You have vastly more experience of these matters than me - why do you think the link to Libank is so important?

StanAccy - how does your position of looking to exit equate to these two statements by you?

28th Feb "Molopo Farms is a must IMO; if not only has high potential but is also relatively easy to mine."

28th Feb "You can guarantee on the next visit to drill the 16,000 Siemens spot they will have done extensive due diligence and left no stone unturned to make sure they hit the spot."

1st Mar "Molopo is a no brainier , good early holes, close to the border near infrastructure, with POW they have a partner who will want to do the investigation and sell it on within 12-18 months so if the due diligence has been good then KAV will be buying either a relatively quick turn around to spin off or arguable at this stage the only proven future mine in the portfolio."

You appear to invest in a number of resources stocks, so must understand that exploration is an iterative process, and it is very rare for a company to get things right first time. KAV are unusual in adopting a detailed and methodological approach - which appears also to apply to Molopo Farms, where they are obviously conducting extensive due diligence before deciding to part with shareholders' money. If the MF deal goes ahead, we can rest assured that it is likely to be a winner, as will be a very tightly defined target at B1.

Unbelievable! Nickel price DOUBLED to $100,000 / T on the LME this morning. Price fell back to $80K, then they suspended trading in the contract. Ben - can a few of us come over to Botswana with our Black & Deckers and help out?

LIH, yes saw that, but on track is not the same as on time, nor the same as agreed! We have been waiting since July, and the schedule seems to slip with very announcement. That doesn't help our public perception. I have asked Lonny for clarification. I am very keen to see delivery of this stage, since a positive flow test is the key that will unlock the bank vault.

two positives that may have been missed in all the excitement:

1. The reprocessing of 250km of 2D seismic is to cover MOU-2, MOU-3 & MOU-NE

2. MOU-NW (yes north WEST) is to be evaluated. This is an OIL, not gas, prospect, so doubtless our Cuboid friend will get very excited.

Having read through both today's RNS and the Novum review, although I am delighted with both, one thing stands out - the lack of a definitive timetable for Morocco.

There is no mention of MOU-1 testing in the RNS - a strange omission imho.

In the introduction to the Novum analysis, it states "... the company’s priority is now to
perform a rigless test in H1 2022, for which the company is fully funded, subject to its
partner, ONHYM’s approval. ONHYM holds the balance of 25% in Guercif."

A little further down, re appraisal drilling "The company favours a two well back-to-back drilling programme comprising the MOU-4 and MOU-5 appraisal wells in order to maximise early exposure to potential gas resources. As ONHYM is carried through the exploration and appraisal phase, we anticipate that Predator could receive approval to drill within the next six months."

This reads to me that ONHYM have yet to approve the next steps that were originally detailed in the end-September presentation - anyone agree, and if so what do you think the issues may be?

PG is billed as a speaker, but appears only to be one of a 3-person panel discussion lasting 35 minutes. Was hoping for a Mag Mell presentation.
https://lnkd.in/dZqSVqQb

FKC - the most common nickel sulphide is pentlandite, and this is what I would be expecting in the KSZ. It is an interesting mineral that contains varying proportions of Fe & Ni, so you can't state its Ni content unless assayed. You will know from the Periodic Table that Co comes between Fe & Ni, so if there is Co in the magma, some of it can end up in pentlandite, substituting for either the Fe or Ni. I suspect this mineral has been seen in the cores and both Ni and a smaller amount of Co have been detected by (often unreliable) XRF, but KAV can't say more until assays confirm the results. This is presumably why Co is put in brackets after Ni in the announcement.

Although Ni & Co have similar economic values, a decent amount of Co would be a major plus, since as I'm sure you know about half of the world's supply of Co comes from the inappropriately named Democratic Republic of Congo, not most peoples' favourite address for investment.

One thing is still hanging - no mention of the magnetite in KSZDD001. The RNS of 16th November said:

"Preliminary field analysis and visual inspection of core samples taken from Hole KSZDD001 suggest the Proterozoic gabbros in the GRS in Target Area B exhibit differences to those encountered in Hole TA2DD002 in Target Area A (announced 14 September 2021), notably around alteration events. The Company's preliminary view of this observation is that Target Areas A and B have experienced differing intrusive and/or metamorphosing events, these including potential mineralising phases within separate, but likely linked systems. Kavango will test these theories and the provenance of the chalcopyrite through petrographic and geochemical analysis of core samples taken from both holes."

Hopefully the full report will address these objectives, and we will see an updated model from the geos shortly.

Ella - re. casing. I have PVC casing on a 20m water well, but that is very different to a hole of the sort KAV are drilling. For a deep borehole, especially one which is being actively drilled (ie the casing is to hold the upper part of the hole stable while still drilling the lower part) there are a number of considerations:
1. Abrasion resistance - the drill string is turning round inside the casing while drilling, and being pulled up and down while doing testing.
2. Compressive strength - to stop sideways pressure crushing the bore - this can be considerable at depth.
3. Tensile strength - a kilometre of piping being lowered down a hole weighs a hell of a lot, and before cementing is able to corrugate, stretch or even break, especially where jointed -usually screw threads, which could strip.
4. Chemical resistance - to drill mud and lubricants.

This is why steel is used, I can't think of any other material that would be suitable as well as transparent to EM. Carbon fibre / graphene? That would cost a bomb.

FKC - absolutely correct.
1. Never believe advertising - I recall (some decades ago!) receiving a new piece of electromagnetic kit, with the accompanying leaflet saying that geologists in Mexico had used it to detect silver, which they were 'loading into trucks' the same afternoon.
2. Everyone knows Ni & Cu in certain rocks are PGE pathfinders. We all know that XRF can detect Ni & Cu, but the results are very often inaccurate. We also know that XRF detectors are not very good at differentiating Ni from Cu. XRF is next to useless for PGE detection, and completely useless for differentiating between PGEs.

I stick by my original post.

Not enough info to make a call atm. Gabbros are medium to coarse grained rocks, the sulphides here are fine grain, and there is no indication what the sulphides are (Cu? Fe?). To form an economic deposit, the sulphides need to slosh around in the molten magma, and settle to the bottom under gravity - metal sulphides are denser than the remaining silicate magma. In doing so, they would normally form large mineral crystals. So we do not have samples from an economic deposit, but we knew that from the absence of massive sulphides in the cores.

What would be interesting to know is the proportion of metals forming the sulphides in these samples, compared to the normal proportions you would find in a non-sulphidated gabbro. If the levels are low, this would indicate that the metals have been sponged up by sulphur, and removed from the magmatic mass - this is good, since if the metals have been depleted, they must have been deposited elsewhere, hopefully nearby and in a deposit that can be located by geophysics.

It would also be nice to know if there were any PGEs, but as per my post earlier today, we will need to get the fire assays.

Benf30, if your real name is David Minchin, then yes, you should.

I'm not plugging the upcoming Noble IPO, just mentioning it since they are covering the same area as HE1 licences. Reading through the Noble prospectus, to me these items stand out:

*Market cap will be around £20M at raise share price of 20c.
*Funds raised will last 2 years, all on preliminary investigation, no drilling is planned in that period
*Most of the Rukwa licences are actually in the lake, that will be interesting/expensive
*The highest geological c.o.s. for any prospect is 18%
*60% of the assumed 100BCF comes from the Lake Beds - i.e. shallow drilling - why such a poor assessment of deeper targets?
*They are using the old Amoco seismic data, which is on a 5km grid, performed to look for oil & gas, so may well be inappropriate for shallow prospect identification, so don't understand why only 40% is for deeper targets, which you would expect to be highly pressured, therefore containing a lot more He.
*This will be updated using 3D on prospects 'identified' by the Amoco data. Personally I would put in a few lines of cheaper 2D to verify the Amoco data before shooting expensive 3D, but what do I know?
*Some aeromagnetics & gravity data to be acquired - but presumably this is the country-wide data already done, being bought in. No mention of hyperspectral or multispectral imaging.

My conclusion - Not what I expected, with a focus on Lake Bed formations actually under the Lake! Not as interesting as HE1, but may get a boost if and when HE1 makes a discovery, and is perceived as de-risking Noble licences.

There was also a 60's group of the same name, but I am sure that is also just a coincidence :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlrQ-bOzpkQ&ab_channel=FifthDimensionVEVO

I've mentioned before the near impossibility of seeing PGEs in core samples. I was just reviewing a presentation from ASX-listed Impact Minerals, who are exploring a gabbro intrusion highly prospective for PGEs. One slide states :
*Exploring for PGE's is DIFFICULT
*They are impossible to see: so called "No see'um zones"
*Not detectable by handheld XRF because of high detection limits
*Conventionally require laboratory assay leading to excessive delays in progressing the exploration programs

There is also a photo of a cut rock specimen of pyroxenite from Roby Pit, Lac des Iles Mine in Canada. It just looks like a boring lump of grey rock, yet contains 18g/T PGE's - worth $1700/T, or $5100 per m³

I'm really interested in seeing KAV's assays.

How does Noble compare to HE1? Badly. Do I believe everything that Renergen have promised? Not on your life.