Member Info for KeithOz

* Ramadan won't make any difference, ONHYM also work on Fridays, unlike most Islamic countries. Things should be finished well before the Eid holiday.

* The 7-8 days originally quoted by Paul has morphed into 10-12 days, because Zenith will be running things more carefully, with particular attention to mud weight. Also, the drill is deviated, which adds a little more complexity.

* I see no reason why NuTech shouldn't be seen as independent, difficult to think of any group with greater expertise.

* I would agree with Paul, better to wait until everyone is sure about the result, rather than having to backtrack later.

* MOU-3 shallow sands perforation is next, swabbing & flow testing comes later - see Flagstaff video 28 Feb 2025, 5m 05s.

We may need to add a day to the timing estimates, due to damaging winds around Guercif.

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1898564917827137898

Some speculation about when we would know the results of MOU-5, even a suggestion from NH that we should have already derisked in advance of an RNS tomorrow – although at sub-4p the well is already in for free.

Factors that need to be taken into consideration:

Target depth. On the seismic slices, the y-axis is calibrated in ms – this is not metres depth, but milliseconds of two-way-time (TWT). The denser the rock, the faster it transmits the seismic pulse, so a denser than expected rock layer is deeper than it may appear on a seismic chart. I have seen TD estimates ranging from 800-1200m.

Strata to be drilled. There is now an improved knowledge of what needs drilling through – we now know that above the Jurassic in MOU-4 there was 175m of dense claystones – so are deeper than apparent on the seismic. I suspect these may be up to 250m thick in MOU-5. These provide an excellent seal. I think it unlikely that shallow gas will be found in MOU-5, since there does not appear to be any obvious trapping structure above the Jurassic carbonates. My guestimate is that the top of the target structure is at 900m, base at 1150m, each +/- 50m.

Drill plan. This is a deviated drill, so actual drilling distance is greater than vertical target depth, assuming Pythagoras's theorem has not changed since I was at school. We don't know how many stages (different diameters), or depth and angle of deviation(s). The greater the number of stages and/or deviations, the longer work will take.

Logging. Logging-while-drilling is standard, but it is possible that a second more detailed/additional parameters log will be performed over the horizons of interest – in the absence of unexpected bonus gas, this would likely be the bottom 250m. This additional logging would at most add a day to physical operations. Helium monitoring is being conducted on-site in real time, but these will be indicative levels, definitive results will require offsite lab gas analysis

Interpretation. Borehole data will be sent in real time to NuTech in Houston. Turnaround time for previous PRD borehole results was 1-2 days.

Approval. Paul will want to consider how to present the data, and must agree this with ONHYM (and possibly a higher authority if a very successful result). Hopefully lessons have been learnt about how an overly-technical RNS is not understood by the market, and how an excessive time lag between finishing operations and releasing results could impact an already eviscerated share price.

Spud was on the evening (UK & Morocco time) of Monday 3rd March. Adding together all the shortest possibilities above, I get Friday 14th March, but think this is very unlikely. I suggest that sometime during w/c 17th March is most probable, with early the following week as an outlier.

If you are thinking of telling me that I always get timing wrong, please also present your estimates, and detailed underlying assumptions. Thanks.

Thank you for your kind thoughts. So far, the bad stuff is happening to the south of us, but that will change shortly. We volunteer attached to a 1st responders unit (wife - nurse, me - driving, chainsaw for fallen trees, ladder, tarps & rope for damaged roofs) so will be an interesting weekend. If you're thinking of coming for a weekend break, this was out 10 mins ago: https://www.weatherzone.com.au/warning/IDQ21037

I see that in the first 90 minutes of trading that buys have outnumbered sells by 3,279 to 1. Based on activity over the last week, presumably we will see the price drop very soon.

A board member has contacted me to say that Porters is attempting to malign me, so temporarily off filter. I have been busy before nightfall preparing for Tropical Cyclone Alfred which is due to make landfall shortly, but very unlikely to reach Scarborough, where I am sure it is bright & sunny. At the time of the November placing, we were told very clearly that it was with a single institutional investor. There was much speculation - repeat, speculation - as to who that was, especially since there was no TR-1. Quite a few people here, including me, speculated - repeat speculated - that it could be a Moroccan entity, who were beyond the reach of the FCA should they decide not to issue a TR-1.

Al Mada is a large Moroccan conglomerate whose ultimate majority shareholders are members of the Moroccan Royal family. Al Mada's resource subsidiary, Managem, last year took effective control of Sound Energy, who have a CNG strategy similar to PRD's. I spoke at the time with a now-retired employee of ONAREP with whom I have worked in the past. He confirmed that Al Mada are fully aware of PRD, and 'have been sniffing around'. Hence my speculation - repeat speculation - at the time that Al Mada could be the placee. This board is for discussions of that nature, so what is your problem with this?

If it is confirmed that the placing was made on incorrectly-stated terms to benefit Novum or Peel Hunt, then this is clearly not only subject to potential recompense under commercial law, but contrary to criminal law for 1. failure to disclose the holding, and 2. market manipulation. It is for these reasons that I and many other posters here were dubious that a flipping of the entire placing was in progress. However, it does seem that the London market is broken, and that there is zero protection for private investors. Back on filter, I have more productive things to do with my time.

GRH on X:

I have mentioned this before

The interest ...as then expressed by posters on LSE

Was limited in the extreme

Pity really ...as it is

All of the data...all of the time

http://Pason.com

#PRD

Yes...they do run Pason systems

I can't recall offhand

But I think there are 28 different measurements‼️

Hope it is useful to folk

KeithOz:

,,,and there's me thinking Paul did it all himself with just a pencil, 12-inch ruler and an abacus.

GRH has connected remotely and sent data in real time to another platform, suggesting folks look at: https://www.pason.com/products/datalink

More deliberate twisting of information. Nowhere have I suggested that perforation and flow testing would immediately follow initial results, let alone with 2-3 days of reaching TD, I am fully aware of what Paul has said, as kindly referenced by BRV.

Someone here is apparently following the informational strategy of Vladimir Illych Lenin.

* Tom the Pizzaman tells us "Big red flag is the radio silence until results are in." No Tom, that is called tight hole status and is absolutely industry standard procedure in order to avoid the potential for a disorderly market. I appreciate you probably thought THS related to something bodily.

* Drilling / logging. PRD, as with previous wells, and as with just about every borehole nowadays, are logging while drilling. That data will be sent in real time to Nutech in Houston, who will be running their analyses while drilling is continuing. Based on previous work, Nutech are likely to have completed their evaluation within 24-48 hours of MOU-5 having reached TD. Drilling could take anywhere between 8 - 12 days. Allow 1-2 additional days for NuTech, and 1-2 Days for discussion of results & announcement wording with ONHYM, gives initial RNS w/c 17th March.

* Flow testing. Everyone here knows flow testing is not the same as drilling & logging, so why pretend that some here are ignorant of this, when they didn't say this? This separate operation will be performed after positive initial results are announced. Those initial results will likely include pressure data and gas readings sufficient to give an idea of the scale of reservoir connectivity, and would be sufficient to confirm the interest of the multiple entities that have already expressed interest in JV/farmin/acquisition. I hate to mention CHAR, but it is curious that the former champions of that company are prominent here in emphasising the need for flow testing - yet Anchois-1, drilled 2009, has never been flow tested. Anchois-2, drilled 2022, has never been flow tested. Despite this, Energean were very happy to buy in. Oh, and CHAR's OBA-1 drilled in early 2024 has never been flow tested either.

* There is much talk of 'rampers' by certain individuals, and spurious suggestions that these people are connected with the company. Ramping is action designed to artificially raise the price of a share in order to make a quick profit - illegal market manipulation. Please give me specific examples of such illegal activity. What I have seen are a number of people with relevant industry and business experience providing factual, and very often referenced, information that explains their positive view towards, and large investment in, this company. If they have made calculations of potential value here, their assumptions and calculation methodology are explained. Contrast that with meaningless statements like 'this share will go to 1p" which totally lack any rationale.

Anyone have other nonsense that needs knocking on the head?

Financialtrolls

d0t

blogspot

c0m

now we even have tw coming on this board spouting fud, suggesting that evap are lending stock. the shorting crew must be getting really desperate if they are now not only running down the company, its management, its assets and numerous posters, but maligning its major shareholders as well.

given your long, long history of wildly unsuccessful investments and dodgy dealings, may i suggest that you rapidly unwind your position before you are bankrupted? better still, leave it to run.

https://****************************/2017/06/dan-levis-attack-on-winnifrith-still.html

Https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/vox.assets.public/media/2697cdc7-3f81-4d21-99e8-a51b8c2abde5.pdf

@IJWT. You said "They announced the commencement of operations not actual drilling." I realise you're trying hard to make a positive into a negative, but perhaps you should have looked at the video I put on X, which I linked on this board about ten minutes before your post. Hint - they are not blending a smoothie.

Https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1896841133914996914

Les monoglots. Bloody autocorrection doesn't speak French.

Hespress article:

"Predator Oil & Gas a lancé le forage du puits MOU-5 à Guercif" -

"Predator Oil & gas has launched drilling the MOU-5 drill in Guercif" - past tense.

and

"Predator Oil & Gas entame, ce lundi 3 mars, le forage du puits MOU-5 à Guercif" -

"Predator Oil and Gas has begun the drilling of MOU-5 in Guercif on Monday 3rd March"

@Jimmy: You suggest that flowing the shallow gas first would effectively manage the drawdown pressure. I'm not sure I agree with this, since this would only remove the top 350m of water from the bore - in fact, for all we know there may not be any water in this top section. That would still leave water in the lower 1100m of the bore, enough to prevent flow from the lower reservoirs.

You also say "the shallow sands were not wireline logged so it’s still exploration risk". May I suggest you re-read the RNS of 13th June 2023, which shows a pretty convincing presence of lots of gas.

"Prior to setting 95/8" casing an inflow of gas into the well was experienced. A substantial drilling break from 339 to 350 metres TVD KB was identified as the source of the gas. This correlated with an 11 metre-thick, unconsolidated, good quality sand with elevated background gas readings. Mud weight was gradually increased to 1.25 S.G., above that required to balance hydrostatic pressure, to reduce the inflow of gas into the well. This gas zone is therefore significantly overpressured (122 psi overpressured) and likely to be supported by connectivity to gas volume to provide pressure support. "

I would take an actual influx of gas, at such high (and measured) pressure that they nearly lost the well, over a wireline log any day.

Hi BRV, thanks for the detailed response. I am in general agreement with your friend, who obviously has far more well engineering experience than me. I repeat, for the 3rd time, that it is standard practice that wells are tested from bottom to top, and it will cause all sorts of problems doing it the other way round. Over the weekend, I mentioned that Paul had stated in the last video that the order of events was changing, and was mocked for suggesting that there were probably commercial reasons for this, namely accelerating getting gas to market.

If, as seems likely, the reservoirs are at significantly different pressures, there would also be complications if it was attempted to intermingle gas from different depths. Paul had previously made this comment. Because of this, it makes sense to flow upper gas first, then use the deeper gas later. However, I would expect that PRD would try the relatively cheap swabbing first, then the other interventional techniques - which were mentioned in presentations as far back as 2023. This would not be to utilise the lower-level gas, but to prove its future commerciality as part of a corporate sale. I would guess that a new well would be a last resort, but still a highly cost-effective one given the near 100% gcos and ccos.

What we really need now is a detailed technical and commercial analysis from Porters and Bold, who clearly know more than you, me, your friend with 30+ years' experience, Paul & Zenith put together. Unfortunately, I fear that they lack the necessary experience and intellectual capacity, so will just respond with their usual worthless attacks, probably within the next 15 minutes.

Where is the Irish government going to get one from? Do they know there is a long queue, stretching to beyond 2030? PRD are already in the queue with a major industrial partner.

"FSRU availability is tight due to an acceleration in European projects and this trend will continue as plans for LNG import projects emerge. Increasing FSRU supply will be challenging due to the unavailability of shipbuilding slots, which will spur demand for LNG carrier conversions."

https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/the-themes-grabbing-attention-in-the-lng-sector-in-2024-83136#:~:text=FSRU%20availability%20is%20tight%20due,demand%20for%20LNG%20carrier%20conversions.