Member Info for KeithOz

So no real exploration (aka drilling) until 2025. I'm a little puzzled that further EM is to be performed - I recall what I presume to be the same prospects were delineated by EM about 5 years ago. At least KoBold are still involved, but no mention if they are actually going to revert to 49% as a result of missing the 2024 15-hole drilling target, or perhaps more importantly, who is paying what for any drilling in 2025. If JAY are now obligated to come up with 51% of the drilling costs, presumably there will need to be yet another raise at depressed prices, unless by some miracle there is an asset sale.

@TheBold. You state "Keith from Oz, looks like you personally know our world famous GRH, from your last sentence". If I did, why would this be a problem for you? For clarification, I have never met GRH nor spoken to him, in fact the last time I was in the UK was 2005. We do occasionally exchange technical views via the messaging apps, as I do with many other serious investors, some who post here, some who do not.

I first looked at this BB a couple of days after the first MOU-1 announcement, because I was totally bemused by the fall in share price after what I viewed as a very positive RNS, made even more positive after the two following RNS's, which clearly indicated an important discovery. At that time, GRH's opinion (and that of several others who clearly had a good technical understanding) was the same as my own. There were of course others with an opposite view, based on no stated facts, such as some clown called Nigel who said at the time 'admit it, MOU-1 is a duster' or words very close to that.

Over the following three years it is apparent that there are two types of commentators here:

1. Those that provide a generally positive commentary, based on stated assumptions and referenced facts.

2. Those that provide a generally negative opinion, based solely on unverifiable opinions.

@Jimmy. I am not an expert on RSDD-H nor other hyperspectral analysis tools. I have asked questions previously, and understand that the way it works is not just by identifying low levels of hydrocarbons at surface, but among other indicators, to recognise the effects on soil and vegetation of long-term exposure to H/Cs. As such, detection can occur through what might otherwise be considered total seals - there is an instance of identification of a reservoir through 2km of salt, subsequently confirmed by drilling. You will of course be aware that salt is widely regarded as the ultimate reservoir seal. There was also a suggestion some months ago that MOU-2 was not totally sealed, confirmed only recently by Paul that gas had indeed been detected above the slumped mud seal in the borehole. There are plenty of published reviews on the web suggesting that hyperspectral analysis is a valuable exploration tool - however, it is clearly not a standalone holy grail, but brings very much enhanced results when used in combination with traditional seismic, particularly in optimising drill positioning.

btw, you have recently repeatedly referred to "reservoirs where the top seal has been breached by basin inversion and gas (has) escaped." Guercif has of course undergone two periods of inversion - the first was 175 Ma, so some 170 million years before the gas was emplaced and the basin sealed, therefore not relevant. The second inversion was quite minor, and just before or during when the Neogene sedimentary seals were laid down, thus unlikely to affect these. This is why all the seismic slices show the complex fault structures in the Guercif Basin terminating below the surface. I am confident that the geologically recent seals are very much in place and that the gas which was emplaced shortly after this has not escaped. I base my views on a number of published technical papers, in particular Bernini & Sani 1994:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46603074_The_Neogene_Taza-Guercif_Basin

and Gomez 2000: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-abstract/84/9/1340/39833/Structure-and-Evolution-of-the-Neogene-Guercif

I have a file of over 200 relevant academic papers, articles and extracts from textbooks, which all present essentially the same viewpoint.

Imho this GRH X post yesterday is of 'some' importance:

"When seeking evidence

Of current hydrocarbon ENERGY

🌟It is a mistake

🌟Of great scale

🌟To consider only the visible light spectrum"

I strongly suggest reading this link:

https://www.scotforth.com/index.php/exploration-methodology

Then this one, you will need to scroll down half a page or so to the very long post at 16.27, 20/12/2011:

https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/gulf-keystone-GKP/share-chat?page=5661&xref=chatnav_i_6_t

(in case this link shows asterisks, it is to the other bulletin board - alpha delta victor foxtrot november).

You will then understand (one of) the reasons for GRH's record of success, and why he is so bullish on Guercif. As GRH told us recently, Adnan Samarrai has also reviewed the Guercif data, and was very positive.

As always, don't invest based on bulletin board advice. Do your own research. Graham has. I have. Your turn.

Let me see if I've got this right....

Everything on this board is a manipulative scam to move the share price.

Except for your posts criticizing the company management.

RNS 12 Jan 2024. "The Company is fully funded to execute the Phase 2 rigless testing programme."

RNS 05 Feb 2024. "The Company is fully-funded to drill MOU-5 using currently uncommitted, discretionary, cash on the Company's balance sheet."

Corporate Presentation 14 Mar 2024. p.3 "SandJet ready to mobilise in April 24" and "Coiled Tubing Unit availably by end-April 24"

It's AND not OR. Equipment (SV-101) delays with other in-country companies (yet again) looks likely to delay MOU-5 drilling until after the SandJet programme is completed. I'm happy & relaxed, expecting an operations update later this week or next week. I don't understand why others have vortices in their underwear - Paul Griffiths, 14 Mar 2024 09m10s "We have a path here to develop a world-class asset that will be very, very saleable, in a very benign tax regime"

An updated report for Europa on the CO2 intensity of Inishkea West gas vs. imported gas - remember Inishkea West is adjacent to Corrib, but on the opposite side to PRD's Corrib South, so we are likely to have very similar emissions.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/EOG/updated-irish-licence-emissions-report/16432823

@Jimmy "I am more interested in the top seal of shales and blue marls as it these rocks which seal the gas in place in most locations. This is particularly important because the basin went through two periods of inversion which can cause lesser top seals to crack and for gas to migrate to surface."

If the seals were not competent, how would you account for MOU-1 and MOU-3 being overpressured from top to bottom, as stated by Paul in the last presentation? I would also assume that transient pressure testing would indicate reservoir connectivity between wells. I don't see that the time and expense of 3D seismic is necessary at this stage - but I agree with you maybe later, when the flow rate from the initial production wells begins to decline, and optimal positioning is required for the next few producers - but this is likely to be a few years down the track, and by then readily financed from cashflow, or done by a purchaser. I guess we will get an operations update in the next week or two, hopefully including start date for the SandJet testing programme.

I think that Snapchat covers exactly the right emotional age demographic for most the complainers, but I suspect OnlyFans might be better, I understand that is for the w⚓s.

Omg, AI has put me out of a job.

Really? Is there anybody - anybody at all - within the Bluejay team who has any knowledge whatsoever of exploration for gas of any type?

GRH tweets: "Many times have I posted about extreme levels of hydrocarbon ENERGY. I do so for many reasons. I have been asked where the hell does such Energy come from. Folk might want to research the power and scale of magma flows. Yes...the Earth's very core is powering the BMD. Folk who have not yet done so...might want to research the Bou (spelling corrected) Msaad Diapir. I reckon it's over 100 km long. It's over 7km deep 😂 It's likely to be the feeder fault 😂 To end all feeder faults.

My response: "Indeed - folks may recall I previously posted this map showing the extraordinary geothermal gradient around Guercif - that heat is from the BMD, a remnant of the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province - another map for you.

( 2 maps at: https://twitter.com/KQuick20704342/status/1781121332039852459 )

The BMD is overlain by a very large fault system - the longest and deepest trends NE/SW, along the line of the Moulouya River and beneath MOU-NE. This fault 'tree' is the conduit for the gas & oil and is sealed close to the surface. Hence the overpressure from top to bottom in MOU-1 & MOU-3."

Seabright has posted about this in the past - I strongly recommend reading through his posts - not very many of them, but they demonstrate substantial knowledge of what PRD are just about to test.

https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/seabright/

Then we won't have to take notice of any positive developments. Just 3 days ago we got this from our learned friend: "Obadhia, I've said similar about our 2 man band spinning 3 plates in 3 continents. It doesn't stack up whatsoever and IMO dilutes the attention"

Today we get an RNS announcing a senior legal/financial appointment in Trinidad:

"Geoffrey Leid is the Company's in-country managing director of T-Rex. He will focus on promoting and developing the Company's business activities in Trinidad with special emphasis on assisting to accelerate the processes required for the execution of the Cory Moruga field development project. He is a corporate consultant/adviser with a particular focus on oil and gas development projects. His extensive experience in the acquisition and funding of resource projects in Trinidad spans ten years."

Paul & external specialists did all the sub-surface work last year - see the T & T ITR for details. An action plan has been agreed with MEEI. Lonny & Moyra will focus their attention on workovers for Cory Moruga wells once MOU-5 is finished. It is PRD's belief that use of NuTech & SandJet will unlock the substantial potential of the block - in addition to the 20M Bbl already identified.

Geoffrey is the right guy to get the finance in place and negotiate all the agreements - including for the sale of oil, and further down the line setting up CO2EOR with other companies in the country.

But you didn't want to mention any of that, did you?

...as anyone would know if...

The ex-directors did not choose to let their options lapse. Read the RNS: "In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Rules of the Predator Oil & Gas Holdings Plc Unapproved Share Option Scheme dated 7 October 2020, share options granted to former directors as eligible persons have lapsed". They have lost their exercise rights since they are no longer employees - this is normal practice, as anyone would if they have ever been employed at a level where options are granted.

Why do I say all results will be issued together at the end of the programme?

* It is standard industry practice.

* They will be testing several horizons a day, perhaps 50+ in total. Did you want an RNS for each horizon, or just one a day?

* A single result is unlikely to indicate the commercial potential.

* Multiple results across different boreholes will be needed to calculate volumetrics

* All the data will need to be consolidated and interpreted in order to give the full picture - anything less could mislead the market.

* ONHYM will want to review everything and agree the announcement wording.

...and finally, although this seems to invite derision from some quarters, Paul is very deliberately attempting to release all data relating to commerciality (including MOU-5 results) as close together as possible. Unwelcome takeover approaches are very much a reality - I see that during my nighttime the possible takeout of CHAR has progressed from rumour to public discussion - see the CHAR lse board for details.

@Ibiza. The existing boreholes are used, no new drilling required unless formation damage is so great as to render the existing bore unusable (very unlikely). The procedure is:

1. If necessary, clean any debris from the bore using the Coiled Tubing Unit - highly unlikely to be a problem since the holes are already protected by casing.

2. Run a wireline log to confirm the depths of previously identified horizons of interest.

3. Lower the Sandjet unit to the required depths and perforate. Not looking for weak points, just the correct horizon.

4. Perform gas pressure tests and flow tests.

5. Individual results should be known immediately, but will most probably all be released together at the conclusion of the whole testing programme. I would guess late May - early June.

@BRV - I didn't want to mention that the potential gross revenues from MOU-5 could be 1250 x the current market capitalisation, people could get upset. Of course, the NPV is a lot less, I guess only a couple of hundred times the current market cap.

My understanding is that:

* SandJet perforation and flow testing of MOU-1, MOU-3 and MOU-4 will start early May. It is fully funded from available cash.

* Drilling of MOU-5 is scheduled to start mid-May, after CHAR's two shallow wells have been finished. This is also fully funded from available cash.

For reasons that have been discussed over the last two days, it would seem that Paul is arranging the timing of operations very well in order to ensure the minimum gap between testing all the wells together, including MOU-5. I see this as very positive, not the failure that some have suggested.

The only possibility for dilution that I can see is that cash may need to be found for SandJetting and flow testing of MOU-5, which would be able to be done with the same equipment and crew moving on directly from MOU-1/3/4 to -5. However, this is a relatively small amount of money, and can likely be found from elsewhere - in particular, Cory Moruga looks to be running behind schedule, so cash can temporarily be diverted from there. I am sure you agree that post-testing positive results will mean an end to the need for further dilution at current low share prices.

I do not wish to get involved in inter-company politics that may or may not exist, and have no problems with folks voicing their concerns. In this instance, I do not think the concerns are anything to be worried about.

For those wringing their hands at the thought of spending money on a prospect with 12% chance of success, may I refer you to p.44 of the ITR of 24th January 2024:

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

Top half explains the methodology, table at bottom gives the percentage chances of success for different aspects of the system. Note that for many of the existing holes most of the different issues examined are given a 100%, or close to 100% c.o.s. The Jurassic carbonate has question marks remaining over the reservoir effectiveness and gas migration, which when multiplied together bring the c.o.s. down a lot. Imho., these c.o.s. figures are already on the conservative side, particularly reservoir effectiveness for what is likely to be both a fractured and weathered reef.

Just under two months after the ITR was published, additional source rock data was presented at the Proactive meeting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agdQLQtn6ac at 20m.50s (slide 14).

Paul states that there is source rock directly below the carbonate trap, which should boost the migration score very substantially, and is likely to be in the condensate window.

My conclusion is that the current c.o.s. is likely to be very much higher than the 12% stated in the ITR.

So: would you take the risk and go ahead and drill a shallow borehole (1140m, 12 days, $3.5M) into a 177km² structure with a potential reservoir 250m thick likely to contain gas and condensate worth perhaps $14Bn?

Or say, nah, let's leave it for someone else?

I am very curious as to why some posters here seem to want us to choose the latter option.