Member Info for KeithOz

You'll have to imagine the picturesS 😁

Part 1.

I thought it may be of help to newer PRD shareholders to pull together in one easily accessible place some diagrams & charts relating to oil, gas & Helium formation. These are partly from my historic X tweets, together with a slightly longer explanation than the X format allows. If you wish to research in more detail (as you should!) I have included references.

What is necessary for oil & gas formation?

Organic material in the rocks.

Carbon-containing material derived from deceased flora and fauna forms the building blocks for all hydrocarbons. The higher the content, the greater the potential for hydrocarbon formation. 2% TOC (Total Organic Content) is considered good. What do the sediments underlying Guercif have? This is from p.13 of the 2022 Prospectus & Competent Persons Report:

"The Silurian “Hot Shale”, the Devonian or the Carboniferous are likely to be present over at least part of the Guercif basin. All these units are proven source rocks in the Middle or High Atlas and adjacent areas, and are likely to be mature for oil and gas. Additional source rocks are also likely in the lower Jurassic and should be mature for oil in the deeper parts of the basin which are buried down to at least 7kms in some areas. Known source rocks are found in the Mesozoic strata of the northern Middle Atlas and the Paleozoic strata of the High plateau/Missour basin (e.g. (Beauchamp W., 1996); (Zizi M., 1996b)), including Middle Carboniferous (Namurian) shales in the Missour basin showing up to 11% total organic carbon (TOC) and Lower Jurassic (Pliensbachian) calcareous mudstones with 4% TOC (Beauchamp W., 1996). Recent work (M. Rachidi, 2009), (Bodin S., 2011), (Sachse V. F., 2012) suggest a more widespread presence of lower Jurassic source rocks across both the High and Middle Atlas belts, including the areas close to the Guercif basin".

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2022/01/cpr2022.pdf

11% TOC is extraordinarily high.

I was a little surprised by how many people visited the PRD Reddit community yesterday. I have added an additional post which may be of interest to newer shareholders, explaining oil, gas, condensate & Helium formation, and how this relates to the Guercif licences situation. This has charts and is fully referenced should you wish to research more deeply.

www.reddit.com/r/PredatorOilandGasPRD/comments/1kwew5b/some_background_geology_to_guercif_graben/

Just gone midnight UK time. In the last 24 hours:

77 lse posts I have read.

76 lse posts green boxed.

2200+ viewings of the Guercif summary on Reddit.

A note on Reddit (now at 725 views) from GRH:

"Superb🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟

Thank you👍

BTW...as I have posted before...

I strongly believe:

That Jurassic structure is

Larger than 187sq Kms

One of five similar structures on the licences🦕🦕🦕🦕🦕

Regards

The Random Old Boy👓"

btw for the intellectually challenged who don't get the Oz bit in my name, if you look across my social media accounts you will see lots of cute kangaroos, kookaburras and even once an Eastern Brown (Pseudonaja textilis, look it up) which the cat kindly brought into my office. There is also a nice family photo of us sitting by the Christmas tree in shorts and singlets, with the sun blasting in through the windows. It is now 6.09pm and I am going to have my dinner.

I would only expect the market to respond to new quantified information, but with 500 views on Reddit by 8.00 am on a UK public holiday, my expectation may prove incorrect.

It seems that the inadequates are trying to drive today's Guercif summary down the page so that it is less likely to be seen, or trying to get the entire thread deleted. To prevent this, I have taken the liberty of posting the entire summary onto PRD Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PredatorOilandGasPRD/comments/1kvhbri/may_2025_summary_of_prd_opportunity/

Just want to say I endorse this 100%. Over the last few months I have had ongoing discussions with IntheGO, who unlike the squealers on here, has valuable industry experience. His petroleum engineering friend has also kindly answered technical questions we have had, and obviously has considerable knowledge and experience.

His friend has produced this independently for his own research, and has kindly allowed it to be published here. I find it very interesting that his views are exactly in alignment with several posters (past & present) on here, who also have relevant industry knowledge. In particular you may wish to re-read posts from Seabright and Caterham7. Also, a reminder that Guercif information has been positively reviewed by Adnan Samarrai, one of the most prolific discoverers of hydrocarbons of all time, and discussed extensively with GRH - this underlines GRH's enthusiasm for the project.

Perhaps the squealers on here would like to inform us of their knowledge and experience, and how it stacks up against the multiple aforementioned folk who actually know what they are talking about. Of course they will not, just hind behind an anonymous avatar and make ad hominem snipes.

Investors must come to their own conclusions. It is your money. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Forget what the King is up to - what about that crazy multi-billionaire Prime Minister? He doesn't want to buy up just the gas for CNG, he wants all of it, including the helium. How can someone that wealthy; influential; so closely in touch with developments on the ground; and owner of the leading gas business in the country; not realise that there is absolutely no gas at all?

Sorry to continue referring back to the 17 May 2025 RNS, but it does state:

"... the presence of mobilised salt above. Encouragingly this increased the thickness and potential effectiveness of the topseal."

There was one theory on here that the MOU-5 was a duster because the seal was ineffective and all the gas had leaked away. That doesn't agree with the above statement.

There was another theory on here that MOU-5 was a duster because there was no effective reservoir to contain gas. If that was the case, why would you bother about whether there was an effective seal? How do you seal something that isn't there? Not forgetting why would you put an expensive pressure valve on top of a hole that doesn't contain anything under pressure?

These are rhetorical questions - that mens answers are not necessary, especially from the illiterati.

* Pre-drill interpretation of the seismic showed several high-porosity intervals in MOU-5. We now know that a salt layer (of as yet unknown thickness) has resulted in these being lower than anticipated.

* I have previously presented detailed calculations on this BB based on the relative seismic s-wave transmission speeds through salt and dolomite. My conclusion was that even with a massive 150m thickness of salt (PG said the salt made a 'subtle' difference to where they intersected the structure) there would still be around 70m of carbonate higher than the gas-charged carbonate intersected in MOU-4, which had excellent porosity.

* Borehole TAF-1X intersected 18m of gas-charged dolomite with a not-very-exciting 8% porosity (Tendrara also has 8%). This was drilled several km away from MOU-5 into a different formation and off-structure, so is not representative of what is likely to be at MOU-5. Nevertheless, this was several hundred metres lower than the carbonate reservoir in MOU-4 & MOU-5. Hint – gas rises.

* Based on the above, there is a reasonable expectation that the carbonates intersected in MOU-5 should be gas bearing.

* Unlike any other drill announcement I have ever seen for any company, the RNS of 17 March 2025, and subsequent announcements and videos, made absolutely no mention of either the presence or absence of hydrocarbons, nor any indications of depths. This is so unusual that there must be a very good reason. However, we were told two important and relevant pieces of information.

“The MOU-5 well has been suspended to allow for a re-entry at a later date” - there is no way that would be done for a duster.

“Good quality resistivity and sonic wireline logs were acquired over the top 50 meters of the Domerian carbonate.” As part of previous wells' wireline logging, the following parameters were measured in addition to sonic & resistivity: Dielectric, NMR, Neutron Density Separation, Gas samples. So why mention only those two? Could it be that sonic tells you the porosity of the rock, and resistivity will tell you if those pores are filled with water, gas or oil? You would not select out just these two parameters in the above RNS statement without good reason.

* My conclusion is that by 17th March they knew exactly what had been found, but there is a reason why that has not been revealed. The usual suspects (a term from a film set in Morocco 😋) will tell us that is because there is nothing to announce. I believe that they are wrong, and GRH's tweet today is much more likely to represent the real reason for silence.

This was the comparison from Reddit PRD Sleeping Giant:

1. Cost to drill:

$3.3M Vs $74M CHAR, that’s 4.5% of the price.

For potentially the same size reservoirs – Add to that the ease and time of drilling—onshore vs offshore. No comparison.

2. Development costs to market:

PRD- $12M -$17M

CHAR- $300M - $500M

About 4% again

*Also worth noting is the time scale to get to market. Onshore Vs Offshore

3. Proximity to the EU Pipeline:

PRD: 5 KM + Very close to the new highway and train line.

CHAR: 72 KM

SOU: 120 KM

They also had this from GRH deleted:

Ages ago...

When ROB posted

On several occasions...

re CHAR...

(both geologically and financially)

Many folk shouted ...

Their objections were many

I posted this earlier, "CHAR now have their licences back from Energean, and claim they are looking at options, which might explain the frantic troll activity on here attempting to undermine PRD's credibility."

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/CHAR/return-of-moroccan-offshore-interests/1703470

I see the trolls are now totally desperate, and have had the thread removed by responding with insults. Not really surprising, since no one in their right mind is going to put up good money funding hideously expensive offshore infrastructure for a questionable project that an experienced major has just walked away from.

For a good quality log to find nothing is an oxymoron. The Helium level in MOU-5 was 311 times the background. Thank you for confirming you are both ignorant and seditious.

Here's a little research topic for you. The 17th March 2025 RNS stated:

"Good quality resistivity and sonic wireline logs were acquired over the top 50 meters of the Domerian carbonate".

Q. Logging records many different parameters, so why would you only mention these two?

A. 1. Look up what the sonic log tells you about the reservoir characteristics.

2. Look up what the resistivity log tells you about what the sonic log has told you.

3. If the answer to either was negative, would you really emphasize these in the RNS?

Same person unable to understand arithmetic is squawking again, making unreferenced and very likely made-up claims.

A resource of 10BCF natural gas with a Helium content of 0.15% would not present an economic case for Helium production, since at $200 per mcf profit, it would only provide $30M, not really worth setting up a separation plant. However, a 6 TCF resource, as independently evaluated net to PRD for just one prospect, using the same metrics, would give $1.8 Bn profit, which is certainly worth having. Guercif is underlain by granites of very large areal extent and up to 10km thick, and it is normal in such a geological environment for the Helium concentration to increase markedly with depth and proximity to source. The potential for helium over a large area of the licence area is very significant, hence the increased focus and recognition that a partner with more experience in this sector is needed.

That would be V O X markets, not asterisks.

https://www.**********.co.uk/articles/predator-oil-gas-stays-the-course-amid-trinidad-delays-and-moroccan-momentum-b02287a/

@Corofin. I was referring specifically to the pillock who claims that background helium is 2000ppm, not the actual 5ppm, a mere 400-fold difference, and using this as 'evidence' that there is no worthwhile level of Helium in MOU-5. But if the cap fits, wear it - there seems to be a dedicated group here who put up repeated negative posts, with no facts whatsoever to back up their views. You are honest enough to admit that some of this is outside your knowledge, I'm sure you would not want to be grouped along with such sad individuals.

As usual, there are people here with no clue whatsoever, and no idea of how to do even the simplest research, yet they continue to post nonsense here in the hope that it will put off investors. Background Helium is 5ppm. That's rather a lot less than the 1557ppm in MOU-5.