Member Info for KeithOz

It was CEG RNS, not CHAR.

Perhaps someone with a more legally-trained eye than me could give an opinion on the following, which I deduce form the standard agreement between ONHYM and an O & G Company:

https://hydrocarbons.onhym.com/sites/all/themes/hydrocarbure/images/node/Petroleum_Agreement_Model_2021.pdf

There are two kinds of licence granted by ONHYM – an Exploration Licence and an Exploitation Concession. The Licence covers a wide area – PRD hold four, covering the whole Guercif area, just one of which covers the entire area drilled to date. Transfer of a percentage of the rights to such a Licence area is permissible – but this would for example be PRD might sell 25% of their current 75% rights to the whole licence to another company, it could not be transfer of a specific area within the Licence relating to 25% of the ground area.

The Exploitation Concession is more limited in scope – it relates solely to a specific hydrocarbon discovery. The full or partial rights to such a Concession may be transferred, without having any effect on any surrounding prospective ground still covered by the Exploration Licence – in other words, a discovery can be ring-fenced.

Now the interesting bit. In the PRD RNS of 17 March 2025, Paul Griffiths stated: “The way forward from this point on is to evaluate the data from the well and then to seek a farminee to join the Jurassic Project. The MOU-5 well has confirmed that the large MOU-5 structure has to be further investigated based on new seismic data. We are very confident, following the MOU-5 drilling results, that a potential farminee will recognise the value proposition assignable to the Jurassic Project”

How can the Jurassic be separated out as a distinct project from the Exploration Licence? The Licence covers not only the Titanosaurus Prospect, but the area already designated for the CNG project Exploitation Concession, plus all the other as yet untested prospects. It appears it can only be done if it is designated as a separate Exploitation Concession, which can only be granted if a discovery has been declared.

If my logic is correct, Paul can only farm out the Jurassic Prospect as a separate entity if there has already been a hydrocarbon discovery there.

“The MOU-5 well has been suspended to allow for a re-entry at a later date”.

My alphabet is missing a few, but here goes:

ADNOC / Afriquia / Al Mada

BP

Chevron

D.

Exxon Mobil

F.

G.

Hunt

....

Repsol

Shell (Vivo)

...

WTF is FTG?

I realise this is a new acronym for many, I should have explained further. It stands for Full Tensor Gradiometry. All clear now? No? Ok, have a strong coffee. It is a (usually aerial) survey that measures the change in gravity in vertical and horizontal directions, then applies mathematical formulae - the tensors, which are complicated vectors - in order to derive a 3D subsurface picture. Dense rocks exert a stronger gravitational pull than less dense ones, this difference can be pictured from the data. It can be cheaper and faster than 3D seismic, and is particularly good for visualising salt bodies - which are less dense than surrounding rock - which is why I suggested it earlier. Using both 3D seismic & FTG together will give optimal results. If you really want to learn more, here's how it works:

https://www.bellgeo.com/what-is-ftg You can skip the equations & just look at the pictures 😁

...and here's an example of using it to define salt intrusions in the Gulf of Mexico:

https://www.bellgeo.com/multi-client-data/gulf-of-mexico-multi-client-programme

Sorry about the lack of capitals & poor punctuation. It's not me - it's this site acting in a random manner.

Part 2.

My conclusion was that the initial 5 wells produced outstanding value for money. They have identified what must be at least 1 TCF of Neogene gas, with a conservative NPV10 of $2Bn, plus started off the Jurassic appraisal, all for a cost of just $15M. That is outstanding value and a highly successful initial appraisal of a virgin basin. The doubling of cost and extra time of a 3D seismic survey would have added little to the geological knowledge, and done nothing to identify or solve the engineering issues.

My view is that the appraisal phase has now concluded successfully. The engineering issues have been identified by drilling, which would not have been known from 3D seismic. The next step is a full Field Development Plan. Optimal positioning of infill producer wells for the Neogene will certainly be helped by 3D. A combination of 3D seismic and FTG will likewise be necessary to elevate Titanosaurus from a prospect to a resource. Revised borehole design will take into account the problem strata and pressure issues.

The cost of perhaps 600 km² 3D seismic and FTG, and possibly 6 shallow boreholes is beyond the financial and logistical scope of PRD, hence the need for a farmin from an outfit with a lot more money and people. I expect that Paul will be looking for an upfront payment to reflect work done to date, while retaining a decent fully-carried stake, so that we can participate in the upside. The company remains debt-free.

part 1.

@jimmy23:

in your first of many posts yesterday, you stated that new 3d is needed since “previous seismic interpretations have encountered unexpected results when actually drilled”, with subsequent arguments based around that. let's look at those actual drills, and see what difference 3d would have made.

mou-1. successfully penetrated the bright spot seen on 2d seismic, found 12m net of gas-charged tgb2 sands as expected, plus unexpected 10m net of thin beds. post-drill realisation that tgb2 extended over far greater area. ultradrill mud interacted with expanding clays. 3d would have added nothing to these results, other than possible pre-drill identification of more extensive tgb2, which drilling identified anyway. it would not have identified expanding clays, nor probably the thin beds.

mou-2. to avoid the expanding clay issue seen in mou-1, purebore silicate drilling mud was used. the slump would have been visualised on 3d, but 3d would not indicate that it was potassium silicate rich volcaniclastics that were going to interact with the drilling mud.

mou-3. this well successfully passed through the slump due to change of drilling mud. 3d seismic would have shown the shallow a-sands gas, but would not have indicated that it was under such high pressure, so the problem would have been the same. formation damage lower down would still be the same, because 2d or 3d, precautionary overbalanced drilling would still have been necessary.

mou-4. despite only having 2d, the well successfully penetrated both neogene & jurassic as planned. lack of flow testing has nothing to do with lack of 3d seismic.

mou-5. 2d seismic failed to differentiate between salt and carbonates. this is likely to be because salt, being crystalline and ****genous, has the same s-wave conduction velocity as carbonate/dolomite with 15-20% porosity. if the carbonate porosity was less, as you have suggested previously on multiple occasions, the boundary would have shown up clearly. 3d would help the visualisation, but i firmly believe that ftg (gravity survey) would be necessary to complement the 3d – this would help identify both mobilised salt and the profile of the basement rise that the jurassic reef is built upon. i agree with you that carbonate reefs can be discontinuous both horizontally and vertically, and i have always said i have no intention of selling my prd holding until at least 4 holes have been stuck into titanosaurus.

so should prd have used 3d? the area covered by mou-1 to mou-5 is around 200km². at a very conservative $50k per km² we get to $10m. although some of this is scrubland, there are also built-up areas, extensive olive groves with irrigation systems, a motorway, major roads, two large rivers and a gas pipeline for the poor vibroseis trucks to negotiate. this will complicate matters and push up the price – even a modest $12m is the same price as an additional 4 wells.

3D is not always the answer to the maiden's prayer.

For example, "CHAR used 3D seismic data before drilling Anchois . The company completed the reprocessing of 3D seismic data across the Lixus license in September 2020, which covered approximately 1,425 square kilometers. This reprocessing improved seismic imaging and depth control, enhancing the understanding of the distribution and extent of the Anchois gas sands. It also led to a significant resource upgrade for the Anchois gas field, with audited total remaining recoverable resources exceeding 1 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), including 361 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of 2C contingent resources and 690 Bcf of 2U prospective resources. This work was conducted before the drilling campaigns, including the Anchois-2 well in 2021-2022 and the Anchois-3 well in 2024, to inform exploration and appraisal efforts."

and...

"Drilled to a depth of 961 meters, the RZK-1 well confirmed thick intervals of good quality reservoir, exceeding pre-drill expectations, with multiple gas shows. However, the reservoirs were largely water-bearing and deemed sub-economic. The 3D seismic data was instrumental in identifying the target, which was found on prognosis, but the well did not yield a commercially viable gas accumulation."

Total cost???

Got cut off.... Acquirers will be able to digitally construct their own 3D models, no need for carboard model skyscrapers.

Good morning, Ibiza, that's at least six questions, so let me try!

Salt.

We were targeting carbonates that were expected to have 15-20% porosity. They knew that there was a salt diapir to the east of the drill location – it is clearly visible on the seismic diagrams. What was unexpected was that the salt from the diapir had migrated laterally. The reason that this was not known was because salt conduct seismic S-waves at the same speed as the expected carbonates, so it all appeared the same on the seismic imagery. This has had the result that the carbonates were thinner than expected, but suggests that they had good porosity – if the porosity was significantly less than 15%, the rock would conduct faster than salt, and the two would show up separately. A plus point is that salt is highly impervious, so would act as a good seal for any gas beneath.

Gas

Methane / natural gas is chemically CH4, so cannot change to or from Helium as Androcles has stated. It is my opinion (and of course only an opinion at this stage) that methane (and possibly condensate) has been generated both from deep below the Jurassic and from the base of the Jurassic itself. If the reservoir and trapping structure are both suitable, I think that the Domerian carbonates and the newly-discovered sandstone layer could all be gas-charged, irrespective of their being updip or downdip from the gas-charged carbonates penetrated in MOU-4. I know others here hold a different opinion.

There are lots of parameters tested during wireline logging, so I thought it very interesting that the RNS should mention having acquired good quality sonic and resistivity logs from the carbonate. Why only these two factors, out of perhaps ten? Sonic will indicate porosity, and resistivity will tell you if these pores are filled with water, oil or gas. Draw your own conclusions.

Helium

Helium is most likely being generated from the underlying deep crystalline basement rocks, likely to include minerals containing Uranium & Thorium. Helium will be produced continuously from their radioactive decay, and being a very low density gas, it will readily migrate upwards. Natural gas is the most likely carrier for Helium, I expect the two to be mixed together, as is the case from similar geological conditions across North Africa. It is usual that the closer you get to the Helium source (ie the deeper you go), the greater the Helium concentration. The only Helium we have been told about in MOU-5 was detected above the Jurassic rocks. We have been told that this has likely migrated along a horizontal fault caused by the salt pushing sideways and fracturing the host strata. We were not told if Helium was detected anywhere else, which is odd if it is rising up from below – it should be found in any structure also able to trap methane gas.

Data room

Will include seismic, borehole striplogs, wireline logs, Nutech & Rockwash data. Acquirers will be able to digitally con

Sorry, Sandy, that's not quite correct. You will see all sorts of prices quoted for helium, but most of it is incorrect - things are far more complex than you might imagine.

'Raw' helium can be bought at the wellhead, or through a wholesaler. This is 99% helium, plus whatever of the medium (methane/CO2/Nitrogen) still remaining after running through a basic separator. If you are buying regularly in bulk, on contract, wellhead prices (use your own truck) are about $200/mcf, so perhaps 13-20x the price of methane. This is PRD's likely business model, selling on contract to a wholesaler such as Air Liquide or BOC. Bought by an end user on contract from a wholesaler (delivered in their truck), it will be about $250/mcf. If you are buying small amounts on a non-regular basis, you will pay spot price, which could easily be twice these amounts. Probably less than 5% of helium sales are at spot rates, but it is these that you will often see quoted.

Next you have 3.9 helium, which is 99.9% pure. This is wholesale only (Air Liquide, BOC etc) and will have been purified by them. Pricing is opaque, dependent upon contracted quantity, but perhaps $400/mcf.

Further up the scale are 4.9 & 5.9 (99.99% & 99.999% pure, but these are for specialist purposes, with prices to match. I know that NASA paid around $900/mcf to secure a long-term supply of top quality.

These top end prices are not relevant to PRD, who will be selling raw gas at the wellhead direct to a wholesaler. Hope that helps rather than confuses!

I understand the confusion - it occurs to me that although the process is the same, Karstification is a term more often used in geography to describe a type of landscape, while enhanced/leached porosity development is more specific to geology. Both GRH and I have referred to features such as vugs - dissolution holes - a few times over the last couple of years. Whatever you want to call it, this is great stuff to have if you are after lots of hydrocarbons.

One other great feature of Titanosaurus is that because it has been squeezed higher and lower over millions of years, it will also have developed many large and small cracks - this 'fracture porosity' will also increase permeability, increasing the chances of all the other holes being able to connect with each other, thus enhancing gas flow. I'd better stop the exciting stuff for now, poor Bold will be turning in his/her/its grave.

@Ibiza - 'Karstification' is a name for the process of erosion of carbonate rocks exposed to the weather. It is named after Karst in Slovenia, where large areas of exposed limestone show deeply eroded features, resulting in widespread cracks, cavities and even caves. Similar topography can be seen above Malham Cove in Yorkshire, or the Burren in Co Clare, Ireland. Other terms for this process, more usually used when referring to carbonate hydrocarbon resrvoirs, are "enhanced porosity development' or 'leached porosity development'. Both these terms have been used in relation to the Titanosaurus prospect for at least two years, in both multiple RNSs, and in the January 2024 ITR.

Titanosaurus is basically a vast fossil coral reef. As with other reefs, sea levels rise and fall over the hundreds of thousands of years of their formation. When reef material is exposed to the atmosphere, weather events quickly erode the soft rock, and dissolve parts of it leaving voids large and small. This results in a spongy or Swiss-cheese texture. Once sealed by new sedimentation after re-submergence, this provides a highly porous potential reservoir for hydrocarbons. Jurassic rocks analogous to the Domerian carbonates forming the potential reservoirs of Titanosaurus are found outcropping at surface around the Guercif area. These outcrops demonstrate enhanced porosity development.

@Ibiza. In the light of your and other posters' comments, I have carefully re-read the notes written by INthGO's petroleum engineer friend. This is indeed well written. putting across complex technical information in a manner that is easily understood, which is why I re-posted it. However, there is no need for conspiracy theories. I am quite sure that everything geological and technical in the document is already in the public domain - via RNS, CPR, ITR, and interviews with Paul Griffiths. I cannot see anything that could be construed as inside information.

The only issue I have is the one regarding financial forecasts - as I stated when I re-posted this article "All I would add is that I personally would like to see updated official volumetric estimations before making financial forecasts."

Perhaps the tedious discussion as to how and why this information was written can now cease, and folks instead focus on the actual content, which in my opinion accurately represents Predator's opportunity in Morocco.

@Croxie - no one would seriously think otherwise, especially since I prefaced it with this statement:

"Please note: I am not the author of this piece, it is written by a qualified and experienced Petroleum Engineer. They produced this summary for their own research purposes, and kindly allowed publication. As a geologist, I agree with the geological factors presented. All I would add is that I personally would like to see updated official volumetric estimations before making financial forecasts. However, for an opportunity of this scale, a market capitalisation of less than £20M is clear indication that the market does not have a clue."

As usual, the trolls are making stuff up to suit their agenda and as a feeble attempt to deflect attention away from the seriousness of their own allegations. Anyway, no point arguing any further, I will leave that to the lawyers. btw, I was correct, one day later the market cap is already over £20M 🤣

The review that I assume you a referring to was first posted on this bulletin board two days ago by another poster. I re-posted it to Reddit with a brief introduction clearly stating that I was not the author. I am not sure why you refer to it as "your (my) Reddit review".

Reference to enhanced reservoir development / leached porosity development / karstification in the carbonates of the Titanosaurus prospect was first made by RNS three years ago. Numerous statements repeating this have been made by Predator management, and this information also appears in CPRs/ITR.

"Dear Stephen,

Further to my letter last month, false public allegations are continuing to be made concerning the Company. Over the last few days, a poster using the avatar TheBold on the PRD bulletin board of londonsoutheast has made multiple allegations of criminal activity against the Company. I attach a file of dated and timed screenshots demonstrating that this individual claims:

1). To have inside information that all bores drilled by Predator in Morocco do not contain hydrocarbons, contrary to the legally-bound information released by the company through the RNS system, and that the Company is conducting is a scam.

2). That I am employed by the Company (which of course I am not) to publicise false information (which I do not).

3). That the company is conducting a Ponzi scheme to deprive private investors of their money - multiple claims.

This poster has previously made libellous claims regarding Predator's contractor Zenith, and was forced to delete their posting history.

In view of the seriousness of allegations of criminal activity being made against a publicly listed company, on the most-used PRD-related social media site, I am sure that you will want to pass this information to the Company's solicitors for appropriate action."

Here's the pictures:

1. Temperature / depth chart for oil / gas formation:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-petroleum-window-is-the-combination-of-depth-and-temperature-within-which-oil-and_fig17_283440121

2. Morocco geothermal gradients:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1720617262783008771/photo/1

3. Aeromagnetic anomaly map of potential Helium sources:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1899250088582738385/photo/1

We shall overcome.

Part 3

Helium.

Helium is derived from the radioactive breakdown of Uranium or Thorium contained in minerals composing the source rocks. These can be found in the deep crystalline basement rocks, granitic intrusions, or sediments derived from these and deposited elsewhere (volcaniclastic sediments). The Helium that has been detected in MOU-3 and MOU-5 may be from any of these sources, since all three underlie, or are near to,Guercif. Here's an aeromagnetic anomaly map of possible sources:

r/PredatorOilandGasPRD - Guercif - oil, gas & Helium formation

Azzab et al, Journal of African Earth Sciences, 2019, Vol 150, pp 584-594, and Boufkri et al, 1st International Electronic Conference on Minerals Science, 2020.

These technical papers refer to a number of small outcrops of granitic rocks near Guercif that are apparent on historic geological maps – I have corrected the translated names in the papers to accord with Google Maps so that you can locate these yourselves. They include Debdou, Narguechoum, Mhirija / Lamrija, Alouana and Tancherfi. I have been unable to locate Mekkam. They also mention other locations further away across northern Morocco & Algeria. By using modern gravimetric and aeromagnetic survey methods, they have determined that these granitic intrusions are very much larger in extent than the small outcrops might suggest - in Azzab et al: “the buried granitic massifs extend over about 30 Km to the NNE” and “The SSW massif has a thickness of about 11 Km, while the NNE one is about 8 Km”. These extensive intrusions could also account for the very high geothermal gradient seen around Guercif. I suspect that they are the primary source of Guercif Helium

Part 2

2. Temperature & Pressure

a). Oil & thermogenic gas. The organic material needs to receive sustained heat and pressure in order to be converted into hydrocarbons. Here's a chart that shows how these parameters will determine whether oil and/or gas results -

.

Note the two boundaries marked by geothermal gradient - this is the increase in temperature with depth. The steeper the geothermal gradient, the easier it is for hydrocarbons to form at shallow depths. Guercif has a remarkable situation, owing to remnant heat from nearby massive granitic intrusions (more of this when we come to Helium potential). For those of you who are geographically challenged, Guercif is plumb in the red zone.

Source: ONHYM https://mining.onhym.com/en/geothermal-morocco#:~:text=The%20highest%20value%20for%20geothermal%20gradient%20in,120%C2%BAC/km%20at%20depths%20greater%20than%20300%20m.

Thermogenic gas may also contain NGLs - natural gas liquids or condensates, which are hydrocarbons of longer carbon chains. Methane (1 carbon) is referred to as C1. C2 is ethane, C3 is propane, C4 butane/isobutane, C5 is pentane, etc. These can be liquid or gaseous state depending upon temperature and pressure.

b) Biogenic gas. This is formed at low temperatures (less than 70°C) by the direct action of methanogenic bacteria on the organic material within recently-deposited sediments. The resultant methane is found at shallow depths, and is formed in situ. Most of the huge gas deposits around the edge of the Mediterranean Basin, such as Leviathan (23 TCF of gas), are of biogenic origin. Biogenic and thermogenic origins of gas can be determined by the differing ratios of carbon isotopes. Biogenic gas is always almost pure methane.