Member Info for KeithOz

I suspect that this is the video that @RideDace was suggesting - it's about Eamonn Ryan formally meeting with anarchist group Extinction Rebellion. Rather disturbing, thank your god(s) that he only has 3 days left as Minister.

https://youtu.be/nfjJl8xyDow

Thanks @Joxer22. My apologies for giving misinformation to counter the misinformation, I must type more slowly in future.

I should have said that legal precedents HAVE proved costly - RKH got nearly €200, and that this COULD prove costly for the Irish government with four companies able to claim under the ECT (Energy Charter Treaty). Lansdowne are in the process of filing a claim after the refusal to convert the Barryroe licence option ... "Lansdowne says: "Given the lack of engagement or any ability to have a respectful and frank conversation with the Irish Government, the company believes it now has no alternative other than to pursue vigorously its ECT claim."

Hope that is a little clearer.

Let me correct the misinformation posted here today regarding the Corrib South licence.

PRD has a Successor Authorisation for Corrib South. This gives a legal right to extend to an Exploration Licence, after providing evidence of financial capability to complete the required work. PRD has submitted the necessary paperwork, in partnership with one of the Corrib owners - either Vermilion or the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Both of these entities have very deep pockets - particularly the latter. All that remains is ministerial signoff. Eamonn Ryan was refusing to do this on personal ideological grounds. Had this situation continued, PRD would be able to legally challenge the lack of a positive decision - there are precedents for this which have been successful under EU law and have proven very expensive for the Irish government.

While there may be no acknowledgement of the Corrib South situation in the new government agenda, this is imho just concealing it behind the green curtain to avoid any negative publicity. Energy security is a big and urgent issue for Ireland, with rapidly increasing gas prices, and dependency on undersea cables and pipelines. Corrib is the only indigenous producing gas field. Corrib South is an extension of this, both geologically and commercially. The necessary infrastructure is already in place, and the current operators of Corrib - our new partners - are keen to extend the working life of the infrastructure and thus gain additional value. The gas itself is low CO2, and little extra emissions will be produced connecting it up, if exploration is successful, so a positive green spin can be applied to this project.

There are multiple reasons why this licence is likely be issued, and with the influence of the Greens now removed, I expect that to happen in Q1 2025, and that we will hear more detail during the presentation nest Thursday.

@Dakad - I don't have access to the necessary detailed information, and even if I did, no one should trust my estimate. If Paul's 50% is right, then your parallel of a coin flip is interesting - would you gamble on a flip that could either lose you at most (some of) today's 7.4p, or win you at least £1+ ?

* A wildcat by definition does not have geological data on which a gcos calculation can be made, so yet more bolides.

* The January 2024 ITR did indeed give a gcos of 12%, derived from Reservoir 45% x Source 56% x Migration 56% x Trap & Seal 71%. See Table 3, p.48. https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2024/01/Guercif_-ITR_20240124.pdf

* The ITR risking did not take account of significant information that has subsequently become available. This includes inter alia:

* RNS 25 Sept 24. "Seismic modelling with the creation of seismic inversions identified multiple low impedance zones in the primary Lower Jurassic target in the MOU-5 structure. This was interpreted as potentially indicating thick and porous reservoir development. Reservoir development is forecast to occur between 800 and 1,000 metres MD KB." This involved reprocessing 278 kms of existing 2D seismic data for prospect-specific amplitude analysis and AVO, Rock Property and Seismic Inversion Modelling suitability studies, with NuTech log analysis of MOU-4 providing additional input parameters. None of this was taken into account for the ITR modelling.

* RNS 06 June 2024 "The Company determines that there is a better than 50% chance of success based on the fact that MOU-5 is immediately updip from MOU-4, which helped define the target for MOU-5." This is a vital element - the ITR also did not take account of the MOU-4 data that showed "2 metres of likely gas reservoir with average porosity 19.9% (maximum 20.6%) and average gas saturation 56% (maximum 73%)"

Clearly the %age rates in the ITR assigned to reservoir, source and migration are out of date and can be upgraded in the light of the above, why this was not done at the same time as the huge expansion of prospect area and reservoir thickness, I don't know.

All this is theoretical, we will have practical answers in a month, but doubtless some here will continue to debate the number of angels you can fit on a pin head if they think it helps their shorting strategy, which is fast unravelling in the face of buys vastly outnumbering sells every day for the past couple of weeks, and consequent share price increase.

Sorry, meant to post this yesterday. From PetroWiki:

Wildcats are drilled where little or no known geological information is available. The site may have been selected because of wells drilled some distance from the proposed location but on a terrain that appeared similar to the proposed site. The term "wildcatter" was originated to describe the bold frontiersman willing to gamble on a hunch."

https://petrowiki.spe.org/PEH:Introduction_to_Well_Planning#:~:text=Wildcats%20are%20drilled%20where%20little,similar%20to%20the%20proposed%20site.

I'll leave you to decide whether posters here are correct to refer to MOU-5 as a 'wildcat', or whether they are just talking their normal level of bolides.

* The fact that Lonny is prepared to tweet positively about MOU-5 suggests to me that his parting from PRD was not the drama that some have implied, and that he still has a substantial shareholding. Interesting that the clueless OP thought that Lonny was still at PRD!

* MOU-3 is not a duster, it has clearly been stated that perforation has been successful - which means gas has come out of the holes blasted into the reservoir rock, but there are two issues.

* Firstly, there is a borehole (and possibly some of the adjoining reservoir) that is clogged with a mixture of drilling fluid, fine silt and water. The pressure exerted by this 1500m column is likely to be in the range of 2-3000psi, which is greater than the gas pressure, so preventing gas flow to surface. The first remedial action is swabbing, which we have been informally told will start in the next few days.

* If that is successful, we should have enough gas for CNG operations start up just from the sections already perforated.

* If unsuccessful, we move on to other remedial actions.

* If still unsuccessful, the second issue - shallow, high-pressure gas behind double casing - is then addressed.

* We have been told that Sandjet can penetrate two layers of casing. We know that the already-measured gas pressure will be much higher than the hydrostatic pressure of a shallow column of gunk, so it should blow naturally.

* An 11m thick highly-overpressured reservoir extending over 58km² will be more than enough to start up the CNG operation.

* So if the shallow gas is almost guaranteed, why not do that first? Because it would then be very difficult to do anything useful to release the gas lower down, even with a complex arrangement of plugs.

* I suspect the MOU-3 order of play is 1/ try to get lower-level gas flowing, investigate if it can be co-mingled with upper-level gas. 2/ If problems are anticipated comingling different pressures, only use lower-level gas from the existing borehole, and drill MOU-3a just to access shallow gas (quick & cheap). 3/ If no lower-level gas flow, perforate upper level and just use the top part of the current borehole for production.

Https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/01/14/regional-independent-group-strikes-deal-with-fine-gael-and-fianna-fail-on-formation-of-next-government/

"... A figure involved in drafting the deal said “There won’t be as many cycle lanes built, that’s for sure, it’ll be about big picture stuff now.” 😆

@Ibiza. This seems to be a very low quoted success rate. I suspect that is because most of the recent technical papers are concerned with shale gas wells. As you will know, these have large horizontal sections drilled into reservoirs with poor poroperm, quite unlike MOU-3. Much of the data also relates to restarting wells where production has slowed due to accumulation of fluids over time, rather than a newly drilled well that has a slurry of water, drilling fluid and fine-grained rock particles. I would think that 70 - 80% success rate for first swab is more typical for a new vertical bore.

The ONHYM swabbing team have been working on water wells that have become unusable due to mud accumulation. Lack of water has become a big political issue in Morocco, which is why we have had to wait our turn - @Donalb commented on this after his recent Moroccan trip. They are pumping down high-pressure water to get the silt into suspension, then swabbing to surface. This seems to work very well, admittedly these wells are not as deep as MOU-3.

A number of options including acid wash are available if initial swabbing does not work, PRD have referred to their potential use in previous announcements.

Here's a couple of papers that go through some options - but please note these are principally aimed at horizontal, fracked bores, and not fully relevant to the MOU-3 situation.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/ll_options.pdf

https://jpt.spe.org/managing-risk-and-reducing-damage-well-shut-ins

Anyway, relax, we should learn more next week.

Good morning, Predators. I hesitate to post this due to the mockery that emanates from certain quarters when satellite imagery is mentioned, but...

If MOU-5 is to be spudded by the end of January, we should be expecting to see pad construction by now - so where is it?

The suggested positioning has been changing over the last year or so, originally from 2.6km SE of MOU-4, to a bit further SSE along seismic line 03-ML-06 according to the January 2024 ITR (map p.38). The RNS of 6th June 2024 told us it was 2.3km from the MEG pipeline node, was going to be 800-1100m deep and take 12 - 14 days to drill. Then the RNS of 8th August told us that the Jurassic carbonate prospect had been remodelled after results from further analysis and reworking of the pre-existing seismic data, and that the areal extent was 10km² greater than known previously. We were also told that the well needed to be deviated, with the pad 277m to the NW of the optimum bore position, positioned "just east of the Moulouya River floodplain".

I have posted two maps and two satellite views on X. The maps show the location of all things Predator, the MEG pipeline and access node, the new motorway link from the A3 Motorway to the Nador Freeport (joint Moroccan/Spanish territory), and some seismic lines. The satellite views are from yesterday, and show what I suspect may the start of pad clearance at the coordinates above. This area is close to three seismic lines, is directly adjacent to the river floodplain to the east, but is a 400m further from the MEG node than originally stated. If you click back to the previous satellite transit two days ago, nothing shows in this location. This area is gravel, so it is not agricultural. No similar changes occur in the surrounding area, so it is not due to moisture. The change is clearly visible across multiple spectra including IR.

MOU-3 took 30 days from first clearance to spud. This location is level river gravel, so could be cleared and stabilised for a rig a lot more quickly.

This is of course speculative at this early stage, constructive comments are welcomed.

Links -

Possible MOU-5 pad on Sentinel-2 L2A:

https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=15&lat=34.28734&lng=-3.28144&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME&visualizationUrl=U2FsdGVkX1%2BnymPacCINaodWT0ojbC42rR%2FDRVI0IGg40bPK7XdHaZgPaXrMsSesK2P6q1hct2kj%2FfaCuUdF0cqQRzRBOkwVrDTRfcWYSmlI%2BYW6xvzIlUO4a3JITbdS&datasetId=S2_L2A_CDAS&fromTime=2025-01-12T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&toTime=2025-01-12T23%3A59%3A59.999Z&layerId=2_FALSE_COLOR&demSource3D=%22MAPZEN%22&cloudCoverage=30&dateMode=SINGLE

You can zoom in, or click back a day to see change.

X: Google Earth annotated maps of Guercif:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1878602743348355550

X: Sentinel-2 L2A photos of possible MOU-5 position:

https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1878603577712906320

Be careful what you wish for - could be at parity by the end of the year. Good 5-minute summary of UK current economy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm9U1GJy3U8

I'm expecting @JohnHenry to explain that it is due to Peel Hunt flipping placing shares.

The pro-forma ONHYM contract does state that multiple Exploitation Concessions can be awarded – with the clear implication that these are for separate deposits.

Paul Griffiths did say in 2022 that individual projects could be ringfenced. My view is that later information may have changed what constitutes a separate deposit. We now risk becoming medieval theologians debating how many angels will fit onto a pinhead.

* We now know MOU-1 and MOU-3 contain biogenic gas in the upper reservoirs, thermogenic gas in the lower levels.

The thermogenic gas in MOU-3 has also been confirmed to contain Helium.

* We have been told that the lower-level gas in MOU-4 and all the gas in MOU-5 are also likely to contain Helium.

* There is a strong possibility that the lower reservoirs throughout the area have gas sourced from the same origin, may be interconnected, and still receiving that same gas from below – does this make them one single deposit?.

* A case could be made that the shallow high pressure gas in MOU-3 is a separate deposit from the Fan turbidites, even though both are penetrated by the same wells.

* Paul has recently suggested that the shallow gas could support a standalone CNG project – perhaps this may become the only CNG project?

* A case could be made that MOU-1, -2, -3, and -4 are all separate deposits – see the Feb 2023 ITR which suggests that each could be distinct reservoirs – it states that further drilling is required to determine spill points.

* What then of further MOU area drilling – are these all interconnected, or only the lower levels? What about the shallow reservoir – is that continuous, or consists of multiple pockets?

* Is there gas in the Oxfordian Sands directly above the Jurassic carbonates? Is that a separate deposit, even though drilled by the same wells that access the Jurassic?

* MOU-4 has already penetrated what could be claimed to be two separate deposits – do we have to block off the bottom section before declaring commerciality?

* What about potential gas in the Triassic underlying all the area - is this separate, or do different parts belong to different projects?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but clearly advancing knowledge of the area has made the original simple assumption of two Exploitation Concessions far more complicated.

My guess is that preparatory work is continuing apace – this would include the costing & timing of an FDP by Zenith, for which ONHYM will need to gain approval and the budget for their 25% responsibility. Long lead time equipment, especially CNG tankers, will need to be ordered, local regulatory approvals will be required. Afriquia Gaz would need to be in discussions with major potential offtakers. All this takes valuable time.

I repeat my assertion that to me it makes financial sense that all parties would benefit by award of an unambiguous Exploitation Concession as close to actual start up as possible.

A little difficult to ringfence two fields that are vertically overlapping, particularly when one borehole (MOU-4) has penetrated both.

@Donal. I think the two tanks are water tanks for the house nearby. They are visible very clearly on GE 4 years ago, when there wouldn't have been any oil tanks then. I have a couple very similar in my backyard. Similarly, the bright elongated spot to the SSE, at the bend of the track, is there 4 years ago, but not in the last couple of months.

As well as the tar lake (GE has linked photos) a couple of km to the SE, there are also 'mud volcanoes' the same distance to the SW, GE links to a picture of people bathing in them - must be fun living in T & T.

Snowcap-1, -2 & -2ST1 were all drilled from the same pad.

Google Earth view is 4 years old - input: 10.119, -61.378 and Search.

Pull up to 2km altitude, you will see an area of dense vegetation south of Penal Rock Road, with several old tracks terminating close to each other. The Snowcap pad is at one of these ends, don't know which.

Jacobin-1 is about 1.6km south of here, in bushland rather than forest, but again no sign of the exact location, not surprised Lonny took a while to locate the old capped boreholes.

The Sentinel-2 L2A satellite intervals are 10 then 15 days. The last two months have been so cloudy that it is not possible to see anything helpful without x-ray vision, which I do not possess, so good luck with spotting oil tankers. You may find it better use of your time to wait until 23rd January.

@HKSN - I didn't want to go down the Helium wormhole, because we have close to zero information on which to make any assessment of the opportunity for PRD. However, fwiw:

Reliable Helium pricing information is indeed difficult to come by. Pricing is in USD per mcf. About a year ago, in my capacity of Trustee of an Australian Superannuation fund, I engaged the advice of a well-known expert on Helium production and marketing. While there are obvious issues of confidentiality, I think it is OK to summarise their views.

* The claims made by wannabe Helium producers (especially US-based ones) regarding future pricing are close to being fraudulent.

* Price is dependant upon quality - Laser Quality being the highest purity, then Ultra High Purity, High Purity, and Standard (for balloons, etc.)

* 95% of the market is producers selling the bulk of their (unrefined, therefore low quality) output at wellhead to the big industrial gas wholesalers such as Air Liquide, Linde, AGC, BOC, Zephyr, etc. These are multi-year contracts, with the prices I quoted ($225 - $250 per mcf) being the norm as at early last year. New contracts may be on higher prices, I do not have more recent data. I was trying to remain conservative in all the parameters used in my Titanosaurus forecast.

* The wholesalers (who also have refining capability) will then supply large users such as hospital groups, tech companies, etc., on contractual terms that are almost never declared, the cost being hugely variable - dependent upon quality as above, volume bought, and the value of other gases they also supply to that customer.

* A very small proportion of output is at spot price - typically to a small local user who has an urgent demand. These can range widely, typically within the range of $400 - $500 / mcf. It should be noted that these are not usually wellhead prices.

* Distance from market is another confounding factor affecting price paid to the primary producer - for two reasons. The obvious one is cost of transportation, the less obvious that being such a small molecule, Helium leaks from even the tightest valve over time, so the longer it takes to deliver, the less gas you end up with. For this reason, a producer in Morocco, close to European markets, should make more than one in - random example😁- Tanzania.

That's really all I know at present. When (and if) we receive some solid information from PRD regarding this potential opportunity, I will revisit the subject, and if of general interest will share any findings.

Must be the original Balaclava Helmet.

The principal gas reference for Europe is the Dutch TTF future price. This hit a new annual high today of EUR 50 per MW for February delivery, a year-on-year increase of 42%. Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, annual prices typically ranged from 12 - 16 EUR per MW.

1 MW = 3.4 mcf, and today 1 EUR = 1.04 USD, so that is $15.3 per mcf. I was using $8 per mcf in my calculations for Titanosaurus value.

For the technically minded - "Dutch TTF Natural Gas Futures Contracts are for PHYSICAL DELIVERY through the transfer of rights in respect of Natural Gas at the Title Transfer Facility (TTF) Virtual Trading Point, operated by Gasunie Transport Services (GTS). Delivery is made equally each hour throughout the delivery period from 06:00 (CET) on the first day of the month until 06:00 (CET) on the first day of the next month."

https://www.ice.com/products/27996665/Dutch-TTF-Natural-Gas-Futures

@Ford707. You ask if there are more structures on the Guercif licences. I suggest you look at the map at the top of p.40 of the January 2024 Scorpion Geosciences ITR:

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2024/01/Guercif_-ITR_20240124.pdf

💥In addition to the MOU-Fan area (MOU-1 to MOU-4), and Titanosaurus (MOU-5), ONHYM & PRD have identified 19 (yes, NINETEEN) additional prospects on seismic.

💥 I suspect 3 or 4 of these are Jurassic carbonates that may be of a scale approaching that of Titanosaurus.

💥 Gas was identified in GRF-1 (Elf 1972), and in the logs of TAF-1X (Philips 1979), and MSD-1 & KDH-1 (ONAREP 1985), all drilled into separate prospects on the Guercif licences, but not investigated further due to lack of commercial interest in gas 40-50 years ago.

💥 Oil was commercially flowed to surface from the prospect referred to as MOU-NE in 1924.

💥 Geochemical sampling and a micro-seep survey across a large part of the Guercif licence area confirm an active petroleum system for oil, condensates and gas in the Mesozoic, and a biogenic gas system in the Neogene (Geo-Microbial Technologies Inc, March/April 2007).

💥 Comprehensive RSDD-H satellite data has been reviewed very favourably by the late ace hydrocarbons discoverer Adnan Samarrai, but this is not publicly available.

💥 ONHYM's overview of the Guercif basin can be found from p.12 onwards here (loads very slowly): https://hydrocarbons.onhym.com/sites/all/themes/hydrocarbure/images/pdf_onshore/Hydrocarbon%20Exploration%20Opportunities_Onshore.pdf

💥 PRD has conducted the following work:

*Reprocessed 278 kms of existing 2D seismic data for prospect-specific amplitude analysis and AVO, Rock Property and Seismic Inversion Modelling suitability studies.

* NuTech Energy third party log analysis of the Tertiary for GRF-1, MOU-1, MOU-3 and MOU-4 and conventional log analysis of MSD-1 for input parameters into AVO, Rock Property and Seismic Inversion Modelling.

* Paleogeographic model for the Tertiary, including depositional facies, transport directions and sand body geometry incorporating outcrop and well data.

* Source rock evaluation of the potential for biogenic gas generation in the Tertiary and thermogenic gas from the pre-Tertiary based on burial history modelling with vitrinite reflectance calibration.

* Gas migration pathways and timing of migration.

Depending upon your viewpoint, this is substantial body of work worthy of review in order to make an investment decision, or else you can just write it off as did one of our ignoramus PRD-bashing group yesterday by telling us that it's a pig in a poke.

As always with investing, your money, your choice.