Member Info for KeithOz

I agree this does not look good, particularly with regard to timing. I also agree that we should be given further information asap as to whether his departure is related to operational issues - although current testing is being managed by Baker Hughes, who certainly know what they are doing. There is a suspicion that he may have upset ONHYM with his 'inspirational' tweets. Let's see what is said in the upcoming Interims.

As an afterthought to the afterthought, I'm calling you out, TheBold, as the troll you are. CHAR, September 13, 13.13 (3 X 13, must be significant) - "the downside is minimal no matter the length it takes". The downside is zero, as today's CHAR RNS demonstrates. I'm truly sorry for all hose shareholders who have been misled by your nonsense, perhaps you'll do us all the favour of leaving these boards permanently. You are a disgrace.

An afterthought - it is possible for one individual to be both. As an example, a very prominent critic here of PRD, its management and of other posters (that he calls 'rampers'), has taken on the opposite role for CHAR. Just from him, an incredible 64 posts on the CHAR board on Thursday & Friday, including multiple statements of incorrect 'technical information' purporting to show upside, and repeated claims that CHAR (market cap £37M) has in Anchois a project worth $6.4 billion - of course using laughable financial analysis. Knowledgeable, sophisticated investor whose opinions you should respect, or deceitful barrow boy? Your money, your choice.

I'm confused that some people here are complaining about an apparent epidemic of rampers & ramping. This is individuals presenting false positive material concerning a stock and giving unachievably high share price forecasts, with the intention of making a short-term gain. I am pretty sure that I have read every post here for the last few months, and have not seen one that fits that definition. Perhaps those making the allegations can cite specific examples. The highest share valuation I can find was presented in my post of 7th Sept 24, 05.03, and was from the respected independent O & G analyst Lionel Therond, recalculated by me to reflect the current number of shares in issue - the full source data for this was supplied. I also stressed that this was only for the MOU 1-4 area where test results are to be released imminently.

Rather curiously, I have never seen a single post from any of the above accusers that presents their quantified view, let alone with a breakdown of their assumptions and calculations. Perhaps they lack the requisite technical and financial understanding - if so, how can they possibly evaluate if something is a ramp or not?

Which brings us to the obvious question - why are these same people consistently presenting negative views? Perhaps they have lost money on it in the past and want to confirm their beliefs for selling. More probably they know it's a good company and hence down-ramp to push the price lower so they can buy in themselves, or do so for their employers. Or perhaps because there is more chance for a resources exploration company to fail rather than succeed, and they can crow "I told you so - I know more than you".

Something else interesting - most of the informative posters here use their real names across social media - those negative are anonymous.

Last word from Gavin Wendt, well-known (in Oz, anyway) resource analyst from Minelife :

“In many instances these guys aren’t investors, they’re not really investing, what they are doing is they’re punting or they’re speculating or they’re trading. They’re not necessarily long-term believers in a company’s story. Their investment horizon isn’t three, four, five or 10 years, their investment horizon is probably three or four weeks or maybe a day if they are a day trader. What they’re trying to do is take advantage of volatility and they’re trying to generate momentum in one particular direction in a stock. We’re seeing it on a particularly significant scale at the present time.

The good news is the pumping and dumping of a stock is not likely to hurt its longer-term prospects. Ultimately the success or failure of a company will be dependent on all of the key fundamentals: project, management, commodity prices, market environment, ability to raise funding, all of those important aspects. A company’s longer-term success or failure won’t be dictated by whether the posters on an internet forum are ramping a stock

From yesterday's SDX RNS: "Shareholders should note that, in the event that the resolutions are not passed, the New Facility Agreement will not become unconditional and the Existing Convertible Loan will be due for repayment on 20 September 2024. Therefore, if the resolutions are not passed, the Company will not be able to repay the Existing Convertible Loan and would be in default and, if no alternative arrangements can be agreed with the Lender, may become insolvent."

@iamrich. RNS 08 August 2024 "Operational planning has now re-commenced, with the regulatory process concluded, TO COMPLETE THE MOU-5 DRILLING PROGRAMME THIS YEAR AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY."

Now I have to write a few answers for ChatGPT and get them on to their server before the UK wakes up.

@iamrich. RNS 08 August 2024 "Operational planning has now re-commenced, WITH THE REGULATORY PROCESS CONCLUDED, to complete the MOU-5 drilling programme this year at the earliest opportunity."

I had clear pictures from the Copernicus browser at all times, via the Sentinel-2 LTA satellite, so I can't comment on the 'blackout'. If PRD wanted to avoid leaked info on flaring, all they had to do was not flare for the short period every 2½ days that the satellite passes over. I know the timing, so I'm sure they do. The two gas flaring detection websites previously mentioned here both use the same Sentinel data.

The IRA hid activity at their training camps in Libya in this manner, even dusting over tyre tracks before overpass time, but I'm not allowed to tell you that.

Erm... We are 4 weeks and 4 days from the 'start' RNS of 7th August, and from Lonny's photo tweets it is probable that actual perforation & testing started 4 weeks ago from today or tomorrow. If Paul continues with his regular pattern, we may just get some results together with the Interims on Tuesday 17th September.

Trinidad lies at the intersection of the Western Atlantic Margin Basins and the East Venezuelan Basins, I put this map on X a while ago - https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1743909817155309710/photo/1

The first oil well was drilled manually in Trinidad way back in 1857, with the first mechanical rotary drill in the world undertaken in 1903. It is perhaps unsurprising that many of the oil & gas fields are believed to be exhausted after such a long period of exploitation. However, the discovery and extraction techniques that were used long ago have now been superseded by modern technologies which have never been employed on these old fields. Remember what I said about big fields get bigger as the result of using new technology to increase hydrocarbon recovery? I put this chart on X - https://x.com/KQuick20704342/status/1789598569487532064/photo/1 All the jumps in estimated ultimate recovery were due to application of new technologies.

Imagine if some enterprising outfit came along with the intention of employing ideas such as NuTech logging combined with SandJet perforation to find virgin reservoir horizons in existing wells. What if the same company had already successfully trialled increasing output from these old oilfields by injecting CO2? I would be tempted to invest in such a company. How about you?

@Buffin. Well spotted! Too much sun.

@JH. Explosive perforation is perfectly adequate for most potential reservoirs. It requires only a slickline (winch/crane). There is plenty of equipment and experienced personnel available worldwide. SandJet is much to be preferred for the sort of unconsolidated and friable reservoir sands as found at Guercif. It requires a CTU to do the sucking & blowing. Plenty of CTUs and skilled operators in N. America, where these are widely used for fracking, SandJet is also becoming more widespread there. I understand there are only two CTUs and teams based outside N. America - little demand due to the widespread fracking bans, hence the difficulty and delays in getting everything ready.

There have been various suggested valuations here over the last couple of years, with many of the originators being publicly identifiable, with relevant qualifications, O & G and business experience, and providing assumptions and calculations. Unfortunately, several persistent (anonymous) posters have chosen to sneer and mock these projections, without providing any reasoned counter-argument - probably because they lack the knowledge to do so. When all they can come up with are ad-hominem attacks, it is a sure sign that they have already lost the argument.

To avoid digging the same hole deeper, it may be better to remind shareholders of the note issued by Fox-Davies Capital in July 2023. This was written by Lionel Therand, a well-respected O & G analyst previously with Standard Bank & JPM, prior to that he had industry experience with Royal Dutch Shell. Lionel has approached his valuation by looking at the individual opportunities within the overall potential Morocco business, calculating a NPV if successful, and discounting (risking) these according to the likelihood of success. As a theoretical example, if he considered one project to have a 30% chance of commercial success (ccos) and a 33% of geological success (gcos), the overall valuation would be 0.3 x 0.33 = 10% overall cos.

I will simplify & summarise his projections ONLY for the MOU-1 to MOU-4 areas covered by the flow tests - nothing for MOU-5, to be drilled shortly, nor the other 19 identified prospects, which I believe to include 4 other Jurassic carbonate structures, 2 or 3 Oxfordian sands, several Triassic, and a couple of other shallow and/or turbidite Mesozoic plays. Nothing for T & T, currently underway. Nothing for Ireland, approaching conclusion.

I have adjusted all his values per share to account for subsequent share issues.

4 BCF Pilot CNG - 75% ccos, 67% gcos,

32 BCF Limited CNG - 62.5% ccoc, 67% gcos,

85 BCF Upside CNG – 44% ccos, 67% gcos,

Total =121 BCF total = risked 13.1p per share.

If 295 BCF 2C upside = risked additional 18.5p per share.

Plus 320 BCF Middle Sands @ 25% ccos, 50% gcos = risked 10p per share.

So this gives a RISKED valuation of 23.1 – 41.6p NPV per share. Upcoming flow test results and Afriquia agreement will remove geological & commercial risk, so let's look at the UNRISKED numbers.

For just the limited Morocco areas mentioned above, Lionel calculates 156.5p NPV per share. This is close to the NPV figure of $2 per BCF that PRD have suggested previously (615BCF x $2 / 1.313 USD:GBP / 570.4M shares = 164.2p). A post-test revised volume estimate will change this value.

Of course, the share price will not fully reflect the real value, that will only come with a corporate transaction, as Paul Griffiths & others here have repeatedly stated.

I don't want to hear squeals of protest, if you have problems with this, send your email to lionel@fox-davies.com.

Meanwhile, expect a comprehensive Interims update 0

Out of curiosity, I opened up the filters to see why the TDFI (Troll Density Forward Indicator – the most reliable predictor of incoming positive news) was so high. It seems the usual suspects are up to their usual disinformative activities.

According to our little friends, we are testing inadequate reservoirs, and will fail to penetrate the formation damage. They don't actually state any reasons to back up their opinions, so let me state my reasons as to why I believe SandJet will do the job.

Conventional (explosive) perforation is not without its problems – with unconsolidated or friable reservoir rocks such as we have at Guercif, the explosion can cause compaction and chemical plasticisation of the sands, both of which inhibit gas flow. SandJet causes neither of these problems, and can penetrate twice as far as the highest-rated explosive perforator. As an added bonus, the diameter of the SandJet perforation increases with depth, increasing the area of the reservoir / borehole interface, thus facilitating gas flow.

The LAM-1 borehole in the Gharb Basin produces gas from a reservoir analogous to MOU-3's Ma Sands. LAM-1 & MOU-3 were both drilled similarly overweight – an SG of 1.45 and 1.49 respectively, and as a result, both had formation damage. I see no reason why the formation damage should be significantly more extensive in MOU-3, given directly comparable drilling fluid pressures into geologically comparable strata. LAM-1 was conventionally perforated through 12” of formation damage, and produced up to 10 mmcfgd from a 4m thick reservoir. SandJet can penetrate up to 60” of formation damage, and is being run over 104m gross, my guess a net 30-50m of reservoir, around 10x that of LAM-1.

The old saying 'big fields get bigger' is due to new technology enabling greater recoverability of hydrocarbons. NuTech & SandJet represent just such new technology. Conventional logging and perforation easily miss reservoir beds under 0.5m thick. These thin beds can extend over hundreds of km² and provide huge volumes of gas – especially if there is a whole stack of them, as in the TGB-6 sands in MOU-1. See my post 24 July 2024 01.48 for details and examples.

Finally, I also saw a statement that if SandJet is not successful, then the only option is an expensive sidetrack. Incorrect. It is very common practice to clean up non- or poorly-flowing wells chemically, usually with acid. I did this myself very successfully with our water bore in the back garden :-) This was also done, I think four times, at Shaikan before full flow was enabled.

I posted on 22 Aug 2024 at 11.00 on timing, and see no reason to change that. We are well over halfway through the estimated time, most of which is needed for flow testing, so if the formation damage could not be overcome, we would have known by now. News next week would be a nice surprise, but I still think w/c 16th or23rd August is most likely.

@Shearclass. You have quoted the helium spot price. Less than 5% of global volume is at spot. The rest is on contract price, which has been stable at around $225 per mcf. Being such a small molecule, helium leaks very easily - the distance and time between Rukwa and the end users mean that all HE1 gas will be sold at a low contract price. Take into account the costs of enhancing uplift of fluids, separating gas from fluid, separating He from N, then compressing & shipping, this becomes rather unexciting. The reality is that at the 'best case' of 6.2 mcf/d, they will get less than $1400 revenue per day per well - assuming that all the wells are optimally positioned. Probably less than $1k per day profit. Then amortise the drilling and infrastructure costs, you are left with a pig in the poke. I mentioned some hard numbers earlier, and was shouted down by the 'multibag today' crowd. I don't think they will be correct, particularly since there will be growing recognition that a large amount of cash will be required to drill the intended 30 wells.

@craignews - that is with artificial lift. I am just using standard industry metrics for commerciality PER WELL, not being negative, not deramping, just saying it as it is.

The 'best case' scenario of 6.2mcfd, multiplied by 200, which is the multiplier price of helium over methane, gives a natural gas equivalent flow rate of 1.24mmcfgd. That would not be considered commercial, particularly where the location is so far from infrastructure and end users.

The question that should be asked is: why do these companies with high capital needs for projects years away from production need to be heavily publicising/promoting their companies? There then follows another question: why does Predator not feel the need to do the same?

Maybe we should club together and get him/her some B12?

@Cyberton: It would be normal at completion of drilling, by any O & G company, to issue an RNS along the lines of "MOU-X has reached TD at 1239m safely and within budget. Logging has shown good quality carbonate reservoirs within a gross pay interval of 230m, with gas shows of up to 3000ppm at multiple horizons. Comprehensive flow testing will begin within the next few days to evaluate commerciality, and a further RNS will be issued when testing is complete". Testing would be subject to availability of equipment, specialist crew, and funding. Hope that answers your question.