Member Info for KeithOz

@Adon - I am on about the appearance of something substantial in the middle of the North side.

These are long links, you may need to copy & paste. Loads very slowly. The links are for the latest transit (12/Feb 2024. New transits are every 2½ days. If you use these links in the future, you will need to change the date (upper left). You can load a string of dates, then run them to see movement over time. I find false colour gives the most detail, but you can play with it yourselves.

MOU-1

https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/browser/?zoom=18&lat=34.28421&lng=-3.44322&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME&visualizationUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fsh.dataspace.copernicus.eu%2Fogc%2Fwms%2Fa91f72b5-f393-4320-bc0f-990129bd9e63&datasetId=S2_L2A_CDAS&fromTime=2024-02-12T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&toTime=2024-02-12T23%3A59%3A59.999Z&layerId=2_FALSE_COLOR&demSource3D=%22MAPZEN%22&cloudCoverage=30&dateMode=SINGLE

MOU-2

https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/browser/?zoom=18&lat=34.32066&lng=-3.3674&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME&visualizationUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fsh.dataspace.copernicus.eu%2Fogc%2Fwms%2Fa91f72b5-f393-4320-bc0f-990129bd9e63&datasetId=S2_L2A_CDAS&fromTime=2024-02-12T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&toTime=2024-02-12T23%3A59%3A59.999Z&layerId=2_FALSE_COLOR&demSource3D=%22MAPZEN%22&cloudCoverage=30&dateMode=SINGLE

MOU-3

https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/browser/?zoom=18&lat=34.32132&lng=-3.38565&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME&visualizationUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fsh.dataspace.copernicus.eu%2Fogc%2Fwms%2Fa91f72b5-f393-4320-bc0f-990129bd9e63&datasetId=S2_L2A_CDAS&fromTime=2024-02-12T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&toTime=2024-02-12T23%3A59%3A59.999Z&layerId=2_FALSE_COLOR&demSource3D=%22MAPZEN%22&cloudCoverage=30&dateMode=SINGLE

MOU-4

https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/browser/?zoom=18&lat=34.28862&lng=-3.33568&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME&visualizationUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fsh.dataspace.copernicus.eu%2Fogc%2Fwms%2Fa91f72b5-f393-4320-bc0f-990129bd9e63&datasetId=S2_L2A_CDAS&fromTime=2024-02-12T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&toTime=2024-02-12T23%3A59%3A59.999Z&layerId=2_FALSE_COLOR&demSource3D=%22MAPZEN%22&cloudCoverage=30&dateMode=SINGLE

I will add new drill pads as and when they appear.

You can also enter the latitude & longitude (lat##.##### lng#.#### numbers in first line of each link) into Google Earth to see historical high resolution views.

Imho the apparent changes at MOU-3 on the transit of 12th Feb are due to pooling of surface water after the heavy rains of the past few days - becomes very evident when you switch to 'moisture index'. However, the movement of equipment at MOU-2 over the last two days does appear to be real. If so, that is rather interesting.

I put this on X:

#PRD

What if?

🦖MOU-3 flow exceeded all expectations

🦖They decided to re-enter MOU-2 next

🦖It would only take a few days

🦖Using existing materials inventory

🦖Before CHAR took over SV-101

🦖and test MOU-2 & MOU-4 in Phase 2

Apologies to GRH for stylistic plagiarism😁

Some perspective here - the ITR 2U for the Jurassic would still provide 50 mmcfgd for 10 years - $½M per day. I wouldn't turn my nose up at that.

@Bob - Jimmy is certainly right in that the seismic is old, not very extensive, and not of the best quality - evidenced by the reef structure being found by the drill to be 200m lower than expected from the seismic. Lots of uncertainty - the ITR has confirmed this, and made some clearly stated assumptions from which arithmetical calculations have been derived. The GIIP ranges are unusually wide because of the multiplication of all these unknowns. The ITR clearly states that is an informal estimate, not a CPR.

Are the ITR assumptions conservative?

* ITR assumptions for porosity range from 8% to 15%. We know that historic drill TAF-1X found low-porosity (8%) dolomite. We know that dolomites provide much of the sources of hydrocarbons worldwide, and typically have higher porosities. We also know that reef structures that have experienced sub-aerial exposure, leaching and fracturing typically have secondarily-developed porosities of 20-25%.

* ITR assumptions for reservoir thickness range from 5m to 50m. We know that 2m was found at the extreme edge of the structure by MOU-4, 18m was found in TAF-1X. It is a little difficult to estimate thickness from the reworked maps provided in the ITR, and they have not done so - the 50m upside appears to be an arithmetical construct. This contrasts substantially with the 2023 estimates of 200m thick reservoir made by PRD management, and in particular with assumptions that all of the 800m of the Lower Jurassic seen in non-Guercif boreholes is of reservoir quality (it is almost certainly not).

* The ITR gives a Bg (gas expansion factor) of 100 -110. This is arithmetically correct for this depth, assuming normal pressures. There have been suggestions that the whole system is overpressured, including the Jurassic reservoir. If correct, this would increase the Bg, and hence the gas volumes.

I assume the much higher volumes proposed on this BB are based on assumptions about the above three factors that are more optimistic than those used in the ITR. It is difficult to question these BB volume estimates without knowing the assumptions used and the reasons for doing so.

We will ultimately have to wait for confirmation by drilling. Only 7 weeks to April 1st.

@Rambo - I assume, and it is only an assumption, that the GSA is ready waiting to be signed, conditional upon exceeding a pre-agreed flow rate (10 mmcfgd?). The 12th January RNS stated : "Depending on the results of the Phase 1 rigless testing, Petroleum Agreement Amendment #4 would also potentially facilitate an application by 5 March 2024 for a single Exploitation Concession over the area tested by MOU-1 and MOU-3, providing geological continuity of potential gas reservoirs can be demonstrated." I assume PAA #4 has been issued, but not sure of the relevance of 5th March - presumably one month after grant of #4. Again, I don't know how long an EC would take to be agreed, but with the PM owning the company that is going to profit from it, I would expect fairly quickly. There is always a potential political risk when working with a powerful partner (double-edged sword effect), but I would think doing the dirty on your smaller partner would hardly encourage future investment in Morocco.

I expect we will get a good indicator on these issues next week.

@VLTone. Yes, that is a concern, although supply chains are not as screwed up as a year ago. I know they have dozens of pallets of drilling mud in the Guercif warehouse, but maybe not enough for that many wells. They will also need casing and of course wellheads - possibly high pressure. On the plus side, these are shallow wells - MOU-3 pair are only around 350m each, so not the quantity of materials required for 1500+m ones. We will soon find out.

It's the start of the Chinese Year of the Dragon today, and the Moroccan Year of the Titanosaurus, so may I wish everyone a happy new lunar year. However, some people of a certain age and emotional disposition will not like what I am going to write, so please move on now if you only want certified results, and please don't clog up the board with posts about what an idiot I am. This is CONJECTURE – only a fool would base an investment decision on this. Warning over. First some facts:

💲 The RNS of 26/01/24 “the commencement of the rigless testing programmes is now expected to occur on or about 29 January 2024. The testing programme is forecast to last for UP TO 14 days.”

💲RNS of 30/11/23: To be tested – MOU-3 – 6m Fan, 4m Ma sands; MOU-1 - 4.6m TGB2, 4m Ma Sands, with a contingency of MOU-4 6m Fan.

💲RNS 12/01/24 Hoping to achieve combined flow of 10 mmcfgd for 10 yrs, with a possible upside of 20 mmcfgd for 6 years.

💲Saturday 3rd Feb - Unofficial confirmation that testing had started on 29th, and was proceeding well.

💲Monday 5th Feb – a very upbeat RNS confirming rig booking for a fully-funded MOU-5. This contained the unusually wide time window of 1st April to 31st May – why? The CHAR RNS the same day told us that they were also using the SV101 for 2 drills in Q1, with up to another 18 in Q3 & Q4.

Now the speculation.

🦖 The testing has provided flow rates substantially in excess of the 10 – 20 mmcfgd above. The market is still only expecting to see evidence of commerciality, which is 3 mmcfgd.

🦖This will enable in quick succession: a declaration of commerciality; signature of a definitive GSA with Afriquia Gaz, an application for an Exploitation Concession.

🦖 Paul has said on several occasions that announcement of flow rates exposes PRD to a hostile bid, so he will want to do everything possible to forestall this asap. Expect Phase 2 testing to start very soon.

🦖 Within the 61-day drilling window already announced, it should be possible to drill 2 shallow holes (MOU-3 SE & NW), 3 medium holes (MOU-5 SE, N & NE – see p.38 of the ITR), and to re-enter MOU-2. MOU-5 SE is already funded, the rest should cost about $10M, possibly paid for from a gas pre-payment. Even if by a placing, the flow test results should put the market cap at £150M, and a small highly-accretive placing should fly easily.

🦖 By the end of Q2, there would be 9 wells ready for production, a purchase agreement for LNG in place, a huge upward revision in volumetrics by Scorpion enabling the possibility of G2P and/or G2EU, thus giving a comprehensive sales brochure for the Moroccan assets.

🦖 Speculation is already rife - if this is happening, it will need to be announced early next week.

🦖 Also expect announcements on Ireland & T&T in Q1.

13% spread??? Must be a record. May you live in interesting times.

Oh, gets cut off when I use a 'less than' sign.

... I have seen forecasts ranging from less than 1 TCF up to 91 TCF. I suggest you use 600m PRD shares in issue, to take account of current options. Personally, I don't think there is much point taking this into such detail, but we should be pretty safe in assuming $ 1 - 2 Bn per TCF would leave reasonable profit for an acquiror.

Whatever, once we have some indicative flow rates - maybe as early as next week - and some revised volumetrics that may or may not include MOU-NE, then we can maybe start counting some hatching chicks.

I believe that Cove Energy has been mentioned in comparison with PRD because 1/. the company was developed debt-free, financed by accretive placings, and 2/. was acquired by a big player after having made a massive discovery. I don't think you can do a simple like-for-like calculation.

Comparative valuations are useful to look at alongside valuations based on cash flow, but it can be misleading to look at just one deal, rather than a range of similar situations. In particular, I don't think it is straightforward to make projections of PRD acquisition value based just on Cove without considering the context and applying certain assumptions. Natural gas prices were about the same as today, but the GBP:USD rate was around 1 : 1.6. Rovuma offshore was about 50 TCF, Cove owned 8.5%. Steve Staley, a former director of PRD, was on the Cove board.

So, a sale price of £1.2 Bn was around $ 1.92 Bn. Cove's share was 5 TCF, giving $380M per TCF.

If you really want to come up with a comparative sum, you will need to multiply by whatever you think is a reasonable factor to represent the relative cost of onshore / offshore, then adjust for the tax regime. These two factors alone will make a huge difference. Multiply by whatever number of TCFs you want to make a wild guess at - I have seen forecasts ranging from

@findme. Let's contrast that with what you have produced. When you arrived on this forum, you told us you had 40 years O & G experience - I was looking forward to you sharing your experience and wisdom. So, what priceless nuggets of information have you actually presented? The only one I can recall is that you informed us that employees in O & G work on Christmas Day. Wow. The rest is ad hominem insults to other posters and cynical put downs of company staff that are making remarkable progress for such a small team. Antivenom is similarly constructive - I assume you are on the same (losing) team.

Anyone notice the TXP RNS today? The Cascadura-2 well has encountered 525' (160m) of sands with high pressure gas. What interest is that to PRD? It's Herrera Sands.

andy on twitter: "#prd - i'm trying to buy some more by sitting on the bid and its ******* impossible

2-3 different market makers with aggressive bids all front running each other

and to make it worse there is no real selling down here

fighting over scraps"

I see no reason why simple data such as initial flow rates and pressures would not be known straight away. More complex data would need to be integrated and analysed, probably by a specialist independent third party, before there would be a clear indication of reservoir volumes and connectivity.

If this is correct, and testing finishes this weekend as planned, initial simple flow data could be available as early as Thursday 15th February, allowing a couple of days for discussion and agreement with ONHYM and probably also Afriquia Gaz. Maybe they may wish to wait until signature of a definitive Gas Sales Agreement before announcing flow rates - difficult to know how long that would take, depends on what detail has already been agreed with both Afriquia & the government.

Given the small intervals being tested in Phase 1, I would expect (again only a guess) that detailed volumetrics will only be released after completion of Phase 2, possibly in the format of a revised ITR. The ITR seems to be formulated for easy & rapid updating, and would provide an excellent sales brochure for the Moroccan assets once full test results and third party volumetric calculations are included.

As far as I know, there are 3 telegram groups. I tried out the public one, which appears to cater to short-term traders hell-bent on manipulating the price - the admin is a well-known trader. After posting some facts that countered the nonsense being promoted by certain members who clearly had an agenda, I (and a few other reputable folks I know about) were ejected from the group. The other two are invite-only, and appear mostly to be friendly banter between a group of people who know each other. Most of the factual data are copied from lse.

However, I will ask the moderators of both groups how you get to be invited, and post the response here (probably tomorrow).

Should have added that in the 'free money' environment that had existed for several years until less than a year ago, a run up in share price leading up to drill results was the norm for most resources companies. I have notice that this is no longer the case now that we are in a risk-off era, and movement is only sparked by real results. This may explain the steady trickle of sells over the last couple of weeks - the more speculative or short-term traders may be fully or partially derisking, believing the lack of a ramp up in s.p. is indicative of poor results leaking out ahead of a formal announcement.

Interesting that most of these sells are being soaked up by post-closing bulk buyers, who are presumably taking a longer term and less emotional view of the company's prospects. Just my view, I can't claim any expertise in LSE trading patterns.

MOU-2 was drilled with PureBore Silicate fluid. They changed drilling fluid formula to Ultradrill for MOU-3 & -4, and the clays did not liquify as they did in MOU-2, so the problem was solved. Not an issue for future production, since the wells will be lined with steel casing, and if necessary perforations can be cleaned up quickly - small workovers are not uncommon for producing wells, but that is why you would want at least two production wells to ensure continuity of contractual supply. Mou-5 was always the next objective, it has been moved forwards because 1/ they now know thet have enough cash available to drill it, 2/ there is a window of drill rig & crew availability between CHAR's first 2 drills planned for late Q1, and their subsequent programme for late Q2 onwards, and 3/ it is potentially a game-changer that would dramatically increase the value of the company if successful.

At the halfway stage of Phase 1 testing, the 'controlled leak' was that things had started on time and were going very well. a sentiment that seemed to be repeated in the up-beat wording of Monday's RNS.

Hi @BRV. I agree with your third paragraph. Figure 5, p.17 of the ITR suggests that I was wrong in assuming that the shallow overpressured sands found in MOU-3 continue across to MOU-4. I agree that these should be called "A Sands". It is the next horizons down, shown in pink, that may or may not be tested in MOU-4 under Phase 2. Unfortunately, although Table 4, p.48 of the ITR shows these as being tested in Phase 2, the more comprehensive Table 2, p 42 does not - under either possible name ("Top M1 Sand Seabou equivalent in Rharb"; or "Multiple thin shallow sands (Miocene)" that appear to have been used for this formation!

I guess we will have to wait and find out 😕