Member Info for KeithOz

People here still equating lack of mention of hydrocarbons in MOU-5 with it being a duster. Read the bl**dy article I posted earlier today. Then re-read the RNS of 17 March 2025, where it was mentioned that 1557ppm of Helium had been detected in MOU-5. No mention was made of the other 998,443ppm. What could the carrier be? Nitrogen? CO2? Fairy f@rts?

Here's a clue, look at p.14 (Appendix 1) of the January 2025 presentation. What does it say at the top left, at surface above the MOU-5 target? "Satellite remote sensing methane anomaly at riverbed". That's the Moulouya River, a couple of hundred metres from the drillpad.

This Quarter:

* MOU-3 shallow sands testing, 2 options being considered

* If everything OK, deeper reservoirs to be tested

* Jacobin-1 workover

plus

CEG closure extended by 2 months - should allow share price to recover

Mag Mell being refined for both Ireland & Morocco

Helium survey

Anyone wondering why no mention of MOU-5 hydrocarbons should read this article:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/actu-et-enquetes/maroc-petrole-gaz-decouverte-agadir-talsint-exploration

then add CHAR to the long list of 'premature' discoveries.

Just in case anyone is interested in information rather than just squabbling, I have put some tweets on X about historical Guercif oil & gas exploration, including actual discoveries. This early work has formed the basis for PRD's appraisal over the last six years that has resulted in the recent multiple discoveries. This gives some indications of further potential that should interest anyone looking to farm in.

https://x.com/KQuick20704342

Condensates? What's the phase separation if MOU-5 reservoir was at -1200m, with a geothermal gradient of 44°C per km (=53°C), and normopressure for depth (=1740 psi/120 Bar)? You would expect around 25% of condensate to be in liquid form, the rest as gas mixed with the methane.

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1918621129322754067 (includes temperature / pressure /phase graph.

Woah-oh-oh-oh, camouflage, things are never quite the way they seem.

Too much resistance?

There seems to be some confusion over the correct category and criteria for various of PRD's resources. Those of you that are Associates, Members or Fellows of the Society of Petroleum Engineers will be familiar with PRMS 2018:

https://info.specommunications.org/rs/833-LLT-087/images/PRMgmtSystem_V1.01%20Nov%2027.pdf

"A classification system of petroleum resources is a fundamental element that provides a common language for communicating both the confidence of a project’s resources maturation status and the range of potential outcomes to the various entities. The PRMS provides transparency by requiring the assessment of various criteria that allow for the classification and categorization of a project’s resources. The evaluation elements consider the risk of geologic discovery and the technical uncertainties together with a determination of the chance of achieving the commercial maturation status of a petroleum project. The technical estimation of petroleum resources quantities involves the assessment of quantities and values that have an inherent degree of uncertainty".

Discovery

"A petroleum accumulation where one or several exploratory wells through testing, sampling, and/or logging have demonstrated the existence of a significant quantity of potentially recoverable hydrocarbons and thus have established a known accumulation. In this context, “significant” implies that there is evidence of a sufficient quantity of petroleum to justify estimating the in-place volume demonstrated by the well(s) and for evaluating the potential for commercial recovery"

The A-Sands, TGB-2 Sands, Ma-Sands & Moulouya Sands all meet the criteria for discovery (note - a flow test is not required as claimed by others on here, if the other criteria are met). These have been formally declared as discoveries, with a combined 2U Gross Risked Recoverable Contingent Resource of 109.3 BCF net to PRD, and a 3U Gross Risked Recoverable Contingent Resource of 235 BCF net to PRD (see pp 7 & 17 of Jan 2024 ITR).

To be upgraded from Contingent Resource to Reserves, the extent and commerciality have to be assessed to a greater degree of certainty, which would include flow testing and a workable and profitable method of extraction, i.e. they are currently contingent upon further geological or commercial evaluation.

Reserves

"Those quantities of petroleum anticipated to be commercially recoverable by application of development projects to known accumulations from a given date forward under defined conditions. Reserves must satisfy four criteria: they must be discovered, recoverable, commercial, and remaining (as of a given date) based on the development project(s) applied".

Finally, it would be highly unusual for 'residual' gas to be overpressured, especially when found in multiple reservoirs at a wide range of depths across several widely spaced boreholes.

@OlivettiChamp. You say "LSE is a nest for boring old geezers with nothing else to do all day." Yet you go to the time & trouble to post identical wording, just the numbers changed, on other lse bulletin boards. Had you considered that it is you that should "Go out for a walk, dig the garden, or get a mistress, for gawds sakes"? Don't bother replying, you're in the green bin.

@Corofin. Gas or no gas? Gas. See Independent Technical Report p.17. Shallow A-Sands - Discovery. TGB2 Sands - Discovery. Moulouya Fan - Discovery.

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2024.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2024/09/Guercif_-ITR_20240124.pdf

Oh dear, Jimmy. There is a well-known religious sect who turn up at your front door and try to make their points by quoting biblical texts - but these are often quotes taken out of context. Context is everything, including in the RNS of 17 March 2025, which said the following: "Data from MOU-5 will be analysed and incorporated in a new "Jurassic Project" that will focus on the core area of the Domerian structure to the northwest of MOU-5 structure. The presence of the Domerian carbonate has now been proven but 3D seismic will be necessary to characterize the carbonate reservoir in the area." Clearly the area in which 3D seismic will be used to characterize the carbonate reservoir is the area 12km to the northwest of MOU-5, and not the area drilled by MOU-5 as you would have us believe.

Your next point is that the mobilised salt has resulted in the carbonates being encountered lower than expected. In my post earlier today, I provided a detailed worked example of the effect of what is likely a worst-case example of an 150m layer of salt overlying carbonates at the maximum expected depth. This still resulted in a substantial section of MOU-5 carbonate reservoir being updip from the gas-charged reservoir found in MOU-4, thus likely to be gas-charged. You repeat your assertion for the umpteenth time without any indication that you have done anything but guess.

On 11th April I quoted a Linklaters summary of UK listing rules regarding disclosure of information deemed price sensitive: "delay may be permitted in relation to a matter subject to negotiation or an impending development that could be jeopardised by premature disclosure or which threatens the financial viability of the company." PRD disclosed that they are in discussions with Afriquia Gaz, French-language articles suggested an enlarged scope to these discussions, and PRD also informed shareholders of an additional 3rd party approach. It is highly likely that confidential discussions are underway, which explains why the details you mentioned have yet to be released. I still fail to understand your logic as to why the non-release of information, either positive or negative, leads you to believe that there is only negative information, which is why it hasn't been released. I also note that you have serially failed to explain why a 'dry hole' would not be plugged and abandoned, rather than going to the expense of completion for re-entry, including fitting a wellhead.

btw, you complain of poor communication, yet in numerous posts you consistently use the term the 'jurrasic' instead of Jurassic.

Further to GRH tweet:

"The Neogene Guercif Basin is affected by sigmoidal and tight Tertiary anticlines juxtaposed to gentle synclines. Most of these anticlines are nucleated by diapiric Triassic evaporates". Rezouki et al, Journal of African Earth Sciences, Vol 164, April 2020.

Some people like to present technical opinions as if they were facts, and in doing so end up sounding rather like a PR person for the competition, rather than an actual geoscientist. I was taught to be cautious when expressing an opinion that other people might rely upon, and make sure that it is supported by verifiable factual data.

In order to opine as to whether MOU-5 intersected a viable gas-charged reservoir, we need to consider a number of issues.

1). Is there likely to be a gas-charged reservoir, based on what is already known?

*RNS 12 May 2022 “The potential for good quality reservoir [in MOU-5] is increased due to its structurally elevated position relative to TRF-1". TRF-1 was drilled by C-P looking for oil, but found 18m of gas-charged Domerian dolomite with 8% porosity.

* The Scorpion Geosciences ITR pointed out "the presence of potential direct hydrocarbon indicators in the preserved syndepositional crest of the structure", i.e. directly above MOU-5.

* RNS 13 July 2023: "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%)".

2). Is the potential reservoir found in MOU-5 updip of the other wells' reservoirs?

* es for TAF-1, what about MOU-4? We need to do some sums.

* Google Earth Pro, shows MOU-4 at an elevation of 348m, MOU-5 is 6m lower.

* MOU-4 Jurassic intersection was thus at the equivalent of -1133m in MOU-5.

* It was expected to be intersected between 850-950m in MOU-5 and be 250m thick.

* However, a 'substantial' thickness of salt was intersected, that puts the Jurassic contact lower than expected. The key is how much lower? This useful table of seismic conduction velocities allows us to do some calculations: https://gpg.geosci.xyz/content/physical_properties/tables/seismic_velocity.html

* Assume the salt mid-range of 5000m/s, and a 15% porosity limestone/dolomite of 4500m/s (the higher the porosity, the slower the conduction velocity).

* For every 100m of salt encountered, the expected limestone contact will be 5000/4500 + 100 = 111m lower than expected.

* I do not know what depth of salt Paul means by 'substantial', but even if it is 150m thick, that gives us a worst case (the 950m depth above) of 150 x 1.11 = 166.5m + 900m = 1066m depth, which still gives us 1133 – 1066 = 67m of reservoir updip (above) the gas charged reservoir found in MOU-4.

That 67m is pretty much what was found in MOU-5, so if the above assumptions are reasonable, MOU-5 Domerian carbonates should be gas-charged. This is of course still only my opinion, but at least I have shown my assumptions.

From GRH this morning:

Per ROB years ago...

Gas, condensate and light oil

Meanwhile...

The trolls on LSE scream and shout

Beyond hilarious.

Actually, I feel a bit sorry for them. Since they obviously can't read big words, over the last few hours I have put some pictures on X to help them understand. https://x.com/KQuick20704342

While we are playing spot-the-clues in the Annual Report, how about the bottom left corner of the diagram on p.34, where the box reads "Gas-condensate prone source rocks encountered in oil window". Q.E.D.

Some more corroborating, if rather old, info. Adjoining the Guercif licences to the north is the Hassi Berkane licence, previously known as the Beni Znassen licence. Curiously, this is currently 'unavailable for licencing' from ONHYM (ask yourselves why), but over ten years ago it was briefly in the hands of Canadian company Maxim Resources (TSX-V listed). They had identified three initial oil prospects in the Jurassic, with a P50 of 60 million barrels, P90 of 30 million and P10 of 120 million barrels. This is from a Maxim July 2014 presentation:

"The main source rock to be considered within the area is Domerian/Toarcian in age similar to the defined sources in the Middle Atlas and in the western part of the Pre-Rif area ... This source seems to be the origin of oil production made during the twenties in Tizeroutine."

You may recall over three years ago I referred to the 1924 oil discovery on the northwest corner of PRD's licence area, together with the quaint photo of a wooden oil derrick and gentlemen in pith helmets, seen here on X:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1504653923541393408

I have posted a chart on X giving the results of a soil micro seepage survey over parts of the Guercif licences performed by Geo-Microbial Tech in 2005. This indicates the presence of thermogenic dry gas, oil, and condensate.

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1916976872673710413

More confusion, NGL is also used for 'natural gas liquids', which is the same thing. But in French this becomes LGN 'liquides de gaz naturel'. Arrgh!

I was incorrect when I posted today that Morocco is going to export LNG. They are, and they're not, let me explain. I have occasional correspondence with a former business contact in Morocco, a retired ONAREP manager. He told me that Akwa Group had set up Saha Gaz to import and export LNG through Nador Freeport. French is his second language. I used to speak business-level French but have not been at that level since moving to Oceania 20 years ago.

In English, LNG is liquified natural gas. In French, LNG is liquides non gazeux, which translates to non-gaseous liquids, or NGLs. In English O & G speak, NGLs are everything liquid that comes out of a hydrocarbon well apart from oil, which of course includes condensate. So Saha Gaz will be working with condensate.

Summary

French: LNG = liquides non gazeux. GNL = gaz naturel liquéfié

English: LNG = liquified natural gas. NGL = non-gaseous liquids (this includes condensate)

My apologies for the confusion.

I'm not going to argue over whether or not Akwa Group know what they are doing in creating Saha Gaz, which is stated in their own material to be both an importer and exporter. The Trans-Mahgreb Pipeline goes to Spain and then on to Portugal. There is a smaller connection from Bilbao in northern Spain across to France and the rest of the EU, but this is fully utilised. Algeria is already supplying Spain with very large volumes of gas via a separate pipeline. Should you want to send gas to countries who are willing to pay more for it, then LNG is the only practicable option.

From last year:

https://www.africaintelligence.com/north-africa/2024/01/09/pm-s-akwa-group-set-to-become-key-player-in-moroccan-gas,110135833-art

"The group owned by Morocco's ultra-rich Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch has launched Saha Gaz, a firm that aims to import AND EXPORT liquefied petroleum gas and to manage the distribution of liquefied natural gas."

(my caps)