Member Info for KeithOz

Jeez, how many times do we have to say it?

@redmonkeydave: You said "I don’t however agree with people that write off a sudden near 10% drop as nothing " and "I never sow seeds of doubt". Of course you don't Dave.

Facts - closing prices last 5 days:

11.5 / 12 - Tuesday 16th

11.5 / 12.5 - Wednesday 17th

12.2 / 12.7 - Thursday 18th

11.5 / 12.5 - Friday 19th

11.5 / 12 - Monday 22nd

This is a very tightly held share - tiny variations such as this are completely normal. We will shortly have an ITR & flow rates - the above bent halfpenny wiggles will be totally irrelevant.

I don't normally comment on the share price, but it seems certain people here are trying to present misinformation. On Friday 19th, the closing spread was 11.5/12.5p. Then just after the close there was a small (£445) uncrossing trade at 13p. This sometime happens when someone has to square off their book in a hurry. As I write, the spread is 12 / 12.5p., which is slightly up on last week's close. So, nothing has dropped off a cliff, except your credibility.

Afriquia Gaz (GAZ:CAS) exceeded average trading volume by 1,700% yesterday. Just letting you know 😍

Looks like a newly levelled area to me, rather than agriculture or due to soil moisture changes - whether for parking, stacking materials, or site for CNG equipment - who knows?

Folks might not know those acronyms - LKG -lowest known gas, HKG - highest known gas. i.e., whole system appears to be overpressured. We will have confirmation shortly.

You would also want detailed analysis of the well logs to positively identify a viable horizon before you start expensive testing. That could take a couple of weeks. Flow & pressure testing is done with different equipment and different specialist crews from drilling - including above ground where a CTU or even a winch is used, rather than an expensive rig. Wells close together are often simultaneously pressure-tested, to ascertain continuity of the reservoirs, so you would drill a batch of wells, then test all together.

For those following up on GRH's ref to 'ANZ-7", this is a typo. ANZ is a well-known antipodean bank. ONZ is an acronym for Ouled N'Zala, a prospect within the Sebou Basin originally drilled by Circle Oil in 2008. ONZ-7 was completed successfully by SDX at the start of 2018.

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2018/01/239280/discovery-morocco

About 20 years ago, FT Alphaville gave a bunch of chart 'experts' a section of a real chart and asked them to forecast where it went next - the majority got it wrong. My cynical view is that certain sections of the financial services industry make a lot of money selling charting/trading systems to credulous customers, and then generate lots of money by those customers making frequent trades predicated on chart movements.

Immediately to the left of 'Share Chat' above, click on 'Share Charts', then the wiggly line icon at the top of the left side - this is "Indicators". These are supposed to be mathematical formulae that help you decide where the price is going next. Unfortunately, they are frequently contradictory, and the range of options is amusingly large - just under 'A' you have Acceleration bands; Acceleration distribution; AO; APO; Aroon; Aroon oscillator, and ATR.

Hence my not-very-serious remark. No doubt there will be howls of protest at my ignorance.

Does that still work for me in Australia, since of course I see the share price chart upside down?

Hi Jimmy, I would welcome your thoughts (and anybody else's) on exactly what might have been drilled towards the bottom of MOU-4. The RNSs of 11th & 13th July do not appear to give us the whole story.

11/7: "The top Jurassic carbonate objective was reached at 1135 metres TVD MD, 253 metres deeper than the estimated depth pre-drill based on no well control. A thick section of 175 metres of claystones capped the Jurassic carbonate section " and

"The speculative pre-drill Jurassic carbonate horizon has now been validated in MOU-4. Seismic remapping and evaluation of the Jurassic using the new MOU-4 well control point and data yet to be analysed from the well will be required to further de-risk the Jurassic objective."

13/7: [NuTech analysis shows likely gas sands at] "1139 to 1143 metres TVD MD, including the top of the Jurassic carbonates. 2 metres of likely gas reservoir with average porosity 19.9% (maximum 20.6%) and average gas saturation 56% (maximum 73%)."

Then on 30th August we were told: "A field trip is being planned for the autumn to evaluate the reservoir potential of the entire interval of interest in Jurassic surface exposures to the south of the Guercif licence area. Geochemical source rock quality and maturation studies, including evidence for migrated gas, for the Jurassic section penetrated in the MOU-4 well are expected to be completed in September."

So we know that at least 175m of claystones, plus 4m of other strata which includes 2m identified by NuTech as gas charged, giving a minimum of 179m Jurassic, has been drilled. Importantly, what we don't know is the TD for MOU-4. If MOU-4 was drilled deeper than the originally stated target of the Jurassic carbonate reef, apparently found at 1143m, maybe it encountered further interesting Jurassic sections, and it is these that are being evaluated as oil/NGL source rocks.

I was a little puzzled by the 12th January RNS mention of "MOU-4: Thin Jurassic dolomitic reservoirs" as intervals for Phase 2 testing. Does this mean that the original Jurassic carbonate reef structure is dolomitised? Or is reference being made to a different structure - either within the 175m of claystones above the target, or strata drilled at an unknown depth beneath the reef?

It makes no sense to be evaluating a gas-bearing stratum for its potential to be an oil source rock, so I assume they must be talking about something deeper. It is also clear that the Jurassic TWT maps in the August 2023 CPR need to be completely redrawn, possibly after further seismic reprocessing. I am curious if this will be addressed in the forthcoming MOU-area ITR, or whether they need more time to integrate:

*updated Jurassic seismic

*incorporation of MOU-4 Jurassic petrology

*results of Jurassic field mapping.

Additionally, Cube has stated that HSSI indicates oil & NGLs at MOU-NE.

It is too early to be making speculative calculations as to what MOU-NE might hold.

Hi Ibiza, very sensible questions. I'm probably first to read, so I'll try to answer.

Wha t will the report cover? The ITR we are expecting in the next couple of weeks will be based on the MOU-area CPR produced for the Prospectus last year, but with the addition of hard data from MOU-3 & MOU-4, including the various external studies done by outfits such as NuTech. I am unsure if this ITR will make reference to MOU-NE Jurassic prospect - although MOU-4 intersected the edge, and a field study of Jurassic outcrops has taken place, I don't know if this is in Scorpion's brief. So the answer to the question is that it is my guess that they will primarily appraise the volumetrics of the MOU-Fan and the shallow reservoir sands only - the remaining areas equivalent to scores of North Sea blocks are unlikely to be mentioned other than in passing.

The 2023 CPR was extremely conservative, since it did not include the drilling results from MOU-3 & 4, where results substantially exceeded pre-drill expectations - unexpected shallow overpressured sands and much greater than anticipated deep reservoir thickness. So I am fully confident there will be a substantial increase in declared resource, both Contingent & Prospective. Whether the ITR will show more or less volume than some on this BB expect remains to be seen.

Will this independent review change with flow testing? Almost certainly, but since we don't know what the ITR will say, nor the results of the flow tests, no one can say at this stage if any revision will be up or down - such is the nature of exploration, risks can only be minimised, not eliminated.

Will gas flow at a commercial rate? I would not be invested here if I did not think that the combination of huge, overpressured, high porosity & permeability and quite probably linked reservoirs will provide commercial gas in a quantity to boggle the western imagination. My main concern has always been the friability of some of the reservoir sands, but well-established methods exist to prevent clogging of the well by sand influx. This potential problem is the complete opposite of low poroperm conditions, which is when you would consider fracking.

It is my guess that the flow rates achieved by Sandjet in the 2nd phase will be higher than currently projected. Methodology, in his Reddit post, calculated the average flow rate per vertical metre of reservoir in the Rharb Basin (SDX data) to be a little over 1 mmcfgd. Sandjet perforates more deeply, and reduces potential compaction of the borehole wall, thus allowing more gas to flow. Additionally, PRD has overpressured reservoirs - my conclusion is that we will achieve a greater flow rate per vertical reservoir metre than has SDX.

Risks will always remain; it is each individual investor's responsibility to evaluate those risks against the potential reward.

Someone asked the difference between an ITR & a CPR. An ITR is produced primarily for company management, to give an independent take on the project under review. A CPR has third parties as the target audience - private investors, institutional investors and institutions providing loans, etc. For this reason, a CPR tends to follow a more standardised format, and can be (but not always) more comprehensive. An ITR should still be a reliable source of information for PIs - no consultancy is going to produce a report that could in any way be detrimental to their reputation.

@MitchMore. Welcome to the BB as poster, rather than just one of the many, many lurkers 😁. A number of us in offline discussions have previously come to the same conclusions as you, but you understand such things should not be stated publicly by someone with a readily recognisable identity, and certainly not by company management. For those who continue to blame the delays to testing on PRD management incompetence, I suggest you digest MM's post yesterday, then with 'the doors of perception having been cleansed,' re-read the relevant sections of the RNSs of 7th March 2023, 5th October, and 30th November (x2). Also look at this meme from Cube:

https://twitter.com/__The_Cube__/status/1730545795156320560/photo/1

PRD: Doing alright, getting good grades, the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.

There, William Blake & TimBuk3 in the same post.

@Jimmy - The 200m+ carbonate reef was maximum thickness - at the position where they are planning to put the next MOU-NE well. It was always known that MOU-4 was right at the edge of the Jurassic structure, and was planned to be sub-optimal in order to penetrate both the MOU-Fan and Jurassic at their small point of overlap.

Before I go off to bed - I circulated this note to some more technically-minded folk off-board, but will also post it here in case anyone has a view:

'On a re-read of the RNS, I noticed this, under the Sandjet Phase 2 programme: "MOU-4. Thin Jurassic dolomite reservoirs". I am curious if these reservoirs (note the plural) are distinct from the previously mentioned carbonate reef, which I assumed was normal limestone, or an improved description of it after petrological analysis. Either way this is interesting, since dolomites usually have better porosity than non-dolomitized limestones.'

I have been contacted by a shareholder disappointed by the RNS, on the basis that it mentions a plateau production rate of only 10 mmcfgd from the Ma & TGB2 sands, and they complain that this is far below the flow rates that I have talked about.

1. This is from just two of the smaller reservoir intervals from only two wells.

2. The profit from just this revenue stream would give PRD a price : earnings ratio of 1.7.

3. The same paragraph in the RNS says that the flow rate from these two horizons could potentially be 20 mmcfgd.

4. "Sandjet rigless testing results will determine in the shorter term any ability to upscale to a 50 mmcfgpd production profile facilitated under the Collaboration Agreement for a CNG Gas Sales Agreement with Afriquia Gaz."

5. "The discretionary drilling programme may have to be aligned with a requirement to further develop the CNG industrial gas market above the 50 mmcfgpd cap set in the Afriquia Gaz Collaboration Agreement."

6. "A successful well may create a new potential gas market (gas-to-power) if the scale of the opportunity for the MOU-4 NE structure is realised."

7. We now can add in some estimates for T & T.

8. There is continued press speculation that the Irish General Election will be held in September this year, with Minister Eamon Clown almost certain to be dethroned.

9. I stand by my variously derived forecasts of PRD's near-term future value.

10. Today's muted reaction indicates that the market in general still has no understanding of the potential.

I also like the potential bringing forward of the Jurassic drilling subject to funds, with the shallow sands appraisal wells AND the re-entry of MOU-2 to follow as cash allows - sensible prioritisation.

Thos who have (understandably) complained about the reduced conventional testing programme can now see the reasoning in detail - many of the prospective horizons will be difficult to test with conventional peroration, and likely to reveal superior results with Sandjet - see, Paul does know what he is doing!

🦖 Morocco -

* All in hand, not more I can say until we see results, but interesting to note a date for the Sandjet follow-up of the more friable reservoir horizons. Hopefully that will give some folks here some comfort.

* CPR for all MOU wells to follow testing results - that will be very interesting re maximum aggregate flow rates and of course most importantly, the overall volume.

* All testing complete by end March (assuming a real-life calendar, not in Griffith months)

* Possible exploitation licence in March.

🦖 T & T.

* The proposed FDP gives the second best IRR I have ever seen (241%) in several decades of project appraisal - the best being that for the G2EU possibility for Guercif.

* Possible acquisition of TXP stake in C-M looks interesting, I would welcome some kind of cooperation agreement with Touchstone

* Recovery factor looks conservative - short-term dependent on how successful the dewaxing is, longer term EOR using the natural gas resource of C-M.

Will follow up further after I have had time to go through everything in detail - probably over the weekend.

Sorry, not familiar with UK #s.

Our favourite amateur policeman writes: "A strategy may function or fail but has characteristics which should ameliorate short term unforeseen problems: hence why I posted the JSE clip where I am 35% up."

That JSE clip was from 3 years ago, when the share price was in the 80 - 100p range, it is now 35p. 35% up???

They also said: "We must all in this life be prepared to be both open to criticism and prepared to mitigate any proven deficits by calling for help". Suggest you dial 999 now and get some professional help.