Member Info for KeithOz

Lots of people questioning that. Could it be that across the 22 horizons being tested, there will be enough gas for supplying the whole of the CNG (industrial) market? As has already been pointed out, the MOU-1 location is relatively isolated, so it could be easier to get the necessary permits to construct a CNG facility there. The funding mentioned in the RNS today would then be contingent upon the MOU-1 test results alone, so obviously you do that first.

What about the other MOU-s? Once CNG funding is secured, existing cash resources are freed up for further development of the MOU-Fan, and of the Jurassic prospect. These closely-grouped wells will produce far too much gas for the industrial market, so will be ideal for connecting together to a short spur pipeline to the MEG.

You may recall in the Prospectus it clarified for the first time that individual gasfields can be financially ring-fenced, so here are two distinct commercial operations - CNG in the short term, providing funding for developing G2P & G2E to readiness for sale in the longer term.

Just imagine the look on Eamonn Ryan's face when the operator of Corrib, Ireland's only gas field, goes to his department and says "we're running out of gas, so need your authorisation to develop Corrib South."

That's a really interesting update, should answer many recent questions on here. It was the continued Tunisian CTU delay that was holding things up, at least the actual Sandjet testing team will bring their own with them.

The comprehensive testing planned for MOU-1 will provide lots of info for optimising the testing of MOU-3 next - this will be an iterative process, with results from one well influencing the testing for the next - very sensible.

Clearly the Jurassic will be evaluated further this year - with two other possible locations to be assessed as well as the one currently approved. Looking at the exposed Jurassic strata should provide an indication of the location of the most likely subsurface rocks with the greatest potential for leached reservoir potential (= highest porosity). Plus the possibility of a further two wells further assessing the MOU-Fan and overlying shallow gas.

Cory Moruga sensibly delayed for three months -decision now should be after publication of the new Guercif CPR.

Irish govt. has been approached by PRD AND a partner together -presumably Equinor. If and when the Energy Security Review is published, things could get very interesting here in very short order.

Yes, it really is worth reading all the comments on the first page of the PANR chat - it demonstrates once and for all what a totally ignorant, mendacious W⚓ the guy really is, and shows the total contempt the many genuine investors hold for him. Let's hope he finally copulates while travelling .

While there is definitely stuff moving round at MOU-2 in the last two days, resolution is too poor to show what is happening. Either:

* MOU-2 is continuing its function as a guarded storage site, and equipment and materials not in current use are being stored there for safekeeping, or

* The red object that has appeared yesterday in the middle of the site is the CTU, and they are cleaning up the bore in preparation for further drilling.

Now discussion is in the public domain, we may see an RNS today even if that was not originally intended. Anyway, it's encouraging to see activity that is suggestive of testing.

It's not just 'red spots' - a lot of stuff has moved around the site in the last two days, after a month of inactivity. Bearing in mind the ongoing cloak of secrecy, I don't expect results will be announced well by well, but in one huge dollop 3rd or 4th week of September, although I'll be very happy to see it earlier!

If MOU-4 testing is underway, they will start at the bottom, so the earliest result known to management will be Jurassic flow data, pressure & composition. If positive, I would assume that preparations will be made for MOU-5/TIT-1/JUR-1 to be drilled in time to be tested while the Sandjet gear is still in-country. imho it would be good use of that extra $3M that was raised. Of course, other opinions are available 😎

Here's the Sentinel-2 close-ups in enhanced colour, for August 23rd & 26th. Copy each to a different tab, then click between tabs to see the difference.

23rd:

https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/browser/?zoom=18&lat=34.28854&lng=-3.33561&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME&visualizationUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fsh.dataspace.copernicus.eu%2Fogc%2Fwms%2Fa91f72b5-f393-4320-bc0f-990129bd9e63&datasetId=S2_L2A_CDAS&fromTime=2023-08-21T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&toTime=2023-08-21T23%3A59%3A59.999Z&layerId=2_FALSE_COLOR&demSource3D=%22MAPZEN%22&cloudCoverage=30

26th:

https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/browser/?zoom=18&lat=34.28855&lng=-3.33554&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME&visualizationUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fsh.dataspace.copernicus.eu%2Fogc%2Fwms%2Fa91f72b5-f393-4320-bc0f-990129bd9e63&datasetId=S2_L2A_CDAS&fromTime=2023-08-26T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&toTime=2023-08-26T23%3A59%3A59.999Z&layerId=2_FALSE_COLOR&demSource3D=%22MAPZEN%22&cloudCoverage=30

No pay wall:

https://twitter.com/Heliumone1

I posted earlier responding in detail to a probably deliberate attempt to undermine HE1 by claiming that Tai-C had an 80% chance of being a duster. Another poster has now joined in, claiming that it is actually me that is being deliberately misleading. This same person has already spread crap all over the PANR and PRD boards, and is starting to do the same here. They have been invited on multiple occasions to enlighten us to their qualifications and experience, and they have failed to do so. They have also failed to respond to numerous requests to reference the sources of their supposed information. It is obvious that they are a know-nothing with an agenda of driving down share prices with the intention of either closing a short or getting in cheap ahead of news. They deliberately stir up FUD without ever providing any actual factual information, and have a modus operandi of throwing abuse at all the people who actually know what they are talking about, and clogging up the boards with up to 20 posts of nonsense a day.

I suggest decent people here do not respond to their posts, if you wish to correct their misinformation open a new thread to do so, otherwise it just replicates their misinformation. Another of their tactics is to respond to a thread containing useful or positive information with personal abuse, thus getting the whole thread removed, so that the useful information is lost to other readers.

When in doubt, click on the poster's name to check their posting history - it will tell you a great deal about a poster's credibility or otherwise. Most importantly, do not feed the trolls. Enjoy the rest of your UK long weekend.

One poster here yesterday claimed that Tai-C had "an 80% chance of being a duster" - i.e. a 20% gcos. I am unsure if that view is simple ignorance, or deliberate misinformation. Table 2.23 of the 22nd May 2023 CPR gives gcos for the four different formations at Tai-C, calculated from assumptions made about source/migration, reservoir, trap & seal. Adding those gcos's gives an overall figure of 52%.

In my opinion this is a highly conservative estimate. For example, source/migration was assumed to be only 70%, yet helium was encountered in all three upper formations during Tai-1 drilling (the drill didn't reach the basement), reaches the surface as high concentration seeps, and is present over a wide area surrounding Tai-C on the HSSI data. If the reasonable assumption is applied that helium is definitely present, this alone moves the gcos up to 73%. I assume the lower rating is applied since only chromatograph readings were taken, since the spectrometer was not working.

Reservoir is only given a 70% loading, despite good-excellent porosities & permeabilities having been recorded in the Qemscan results from Tai-1, and corroborated in the historic Ivuna-1 and Galula-1 wells. The main concern in the CPR is an effective seal, which I also find a little odd given the proven existence of extensive multiple layers of fine-grained shales across all three bores, giving credence to the existence of multiple stacked plays.

Feel free to dispute my view that the CPR is deliberately conservative, but to suggest that there is only a 20% chance of success is clearly (and possibly deliberately) misleading.

@Cybertron. I'm a very boring person, I just buy and do nothing. First invested years ago through Solo, which became Scirocco, then bought into Attis before the reverse into the current listed entity HE1. I expect I'll do nothing for a few more years, or until taken over, whichever comes first. Some folks actively trade, watching screens all day and taking risks for fractions of a penny. They very rarely make big money. I prefer having a life and reaping substantial long-term reward. Each to their own.

@ForrestGump. imo it was not a matter of being unlucky at the company you mention. Unfortunately, I cannot say more publicly. But, yes things are looking pretty good here - as always, good management is needed as well as good prospects, and Lorna has the right experience to run this campaign.

Part 2.

After drilling, casing and cementing, you are left with a stable borehole that has been 'completed' for testing. The testing process does not normally require the full original drilling rig, it can be done cheaply using a winch, or more expensively and comprehensively using equipment called a coiled tubing unit (CTU). I think winch-mounted equipment is perfectly adequate for Tai-C, which is a shallow hole with straightforward testing requirements.

Testing is done by lowering a device to the previously-identified potential reservoir depth. For each test, the section of bore to be tested is isolated by inflatable valves. A device then drills through the casing and into the reservoir – this is a drill stem test (DST). A sample of the reservoir rock and any contained gas is taken, and gas pressure and flow rate is recorded. This process is repeated for each potential reservoir. The rock & gas samples are brought to the surface for lab analysis.

Gas flows may be recorded over a sustained period to ascertain rate of flow decline, which will give an indication of reservoir volume. A more modern method involves intermittent flow testing, where the gas flow is measured over a few hours, then shut off for a few hours. This cycle is repeated several times over a couple of days, and from this flow decline can be calculated by someone cleverer than me.

After all this data has been integrated, commerciality (or not) can be declared.

I have almost no doubt that there is plenty of helium at Tai-C. I also strongly suspect that the concentration of helium in nitrogen is higher than that used for calculations in the CPR. For balance, the main risks I see are the physical difficulties of drilling what is known to be unstable rock strata, and whether the flow rates will be sufficient to declare commerciality.

I would hope that since the drilling conditions are now known, all appropriate steps have been taken to overcome problems of borehole stability. I also assume, given the high value of helium compared to natural gas, that a fairly low flow volume will be adequate to provide commercial success.

Hope this of help - Keith

Part 1.

Since there appear to be a few investors here who may be relatively new to oil & gas exploration, it may be helpful to post a brief summary in simple terms of what happens while drilling & testing a borehole. Many of you know all about this, so you can safely skip to the next post, but I note there have been a few questions over the last few days.

The bore starts off with a wide diameter, and drills down in stages, each stage with a smaller diameter. Immediately following the drill bit is a string of instruments that record a number of parameters which would indicate reservoir potential and presence of gas. These measurements are recorded in an on-site truck. The presence of gas at various depths is also recorded, additionally by what bubbles up the drill hole, where it is captured at the surface - but these gas shows are not 100% representative of what may be in the reservoir, since they have interacted with the drilling fluid (drilling mud) on the way up. Rock chips brought up to surface are also recorded, for rock type, porosity and permeability among other characteristics.

All the above measurements & observations are collated into a striplog, which is used to identify the most likely depths at which to find economic helium deposits. This initial data will be released, enabling (hopefully!) a 'discovery' to be announced. I recommend taking a look at a real striplog to see just how complex & comprehensive the record is - these are almost never made available publicly, but I just happen to have one here:

https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/01/StripLog-MOU-2b.pdf

It is a very big file and will take a while to load, you probably won't see very much worthwhile using a phone.

Each time drilling diameter needs to be changed, the whole drill string is withdrawn, and tubing called casing is lowered into the hole and cemented in position. This is to prevent the borehole collapsing. Unstable rock strata in the Lake Beds Formation in Tai-1 was a big problem, resulting in the drill string getting jammed, and a borehole diversion having to be made. This is extremely costly in terms of lost equipment and increased drilling time, but I am sure that lessons have been learned from last time. Other problems at Tai-1 included the correct equipment either not being available, or being incorrectly calibrated for methane detection & measurement, not for helium.

Please note this troll tactic is particularly destructive:

1. Someone posts some useful factual information, which is of course opposite to the troll agenda.

2. Troll replies with deliberately abusive / disruptive response.

3. Whole thread, including the useful information, is deleted.

4. Troll objective achieved.

As others have said - Do not reply, do not engage, if correcting misinformation change the heading and do not mention troll name. I am fully in favour of seeing alternative views and debating them, as long as they are presented in a legitimate manner. This is nothing to do with producing an 'echo chamber' - it is everything to do with returning to a productive, helpful, adult discussion.

Thank you.

Https://weatherspark.com/y/36529/Average-Weather-in-Guercif-Morocco-Year-Round#Sections-Rain

@PredFan. Hi, welcome to the board as a poster, not just a lurker 😊. I do not have inside information, so if I am not quoting publicly available information (which I usually reference), then anything I say can only be speculation on my part. I do know that the Sandjet equipment and team are being brought in from the US. I do not know if they are already in Morocco and have started testing, or if there will be a delay before they can start due to lack of availability. Paul stated that testing would be completed by the end of September, and we have been led to believe that each well would require around ten days.

My post earlier this morning was speculation - on the possible reasons for a lack of announcements. If PRD management are in any kind of negotiations, that will be under a requirement for confidentiality. Maybe the silence is because there is nothing to say at the moment, but we will just learn in a few days that well testing is set to begin.

Whatever is happening, I am confident that it will happen in the shortest possible time that allows for a positive outcome.

Predator has released more detailed information about its operations than any other O & G company, small or large, that I have ever seen. An example of this - the full MOU-2 well log is publicly available. Despite this, Paul & Lonny have taken a lot of stick for either not informing shareholders of what is happening, or for changing the running order at short notice. This is unfair, since it actually demonstrates flexibility in a fluid operating and business environment, improving the chances of reaching the best conclusions in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Have folks considered that the current quiet period must be for very good reason? Likely possibilities include discussions are ongoing with a 3rd party or parties; or else further data from recent drilling has emerged - the results of either could radically change the recently announced running order.

Suppose a CNG end user was sufficiently happy with current data to go ahead with a gas sales agreement - would you still do a full suite of testing? Or what if there was such confidence that 100 - 200+ mmcfgd was likely, would you bypass the CNG development option, which requires both money and a lot of management time, and go straight to a sale of all or some of PGVM?

If either of these were real possibilities, would you also use some of the recently raised money to finish MOU-2, and/or evaluate the Jurassic further? It has been suggested here that the Jurassic could be tested by directional drilling from the MOU-4 pad, but I don't think the specialist equipment and expertise is readily available. More likely, and more cost-effective, would be to start a new drill at the sweet spot updip - this already has an EIA approval (see RNS 12 May 2022), and a site visit to confirm the final location targeting a 35km² closure within the larger Jurassic structure (see RNS 24 Oct 2022).

So, what's next? My predictions (probably wrong 😁)

* The radio silence will end soon.

* The plans will have changed.

* It will not be what we are expecting

* We will be very happy.

It indicates there could be gas from the Neogene 1000m down (as we already know) all the way to the Triassic over 4km down.

If you're as bored as I am reading the endless posts speculating on the daily ¼p price movement, here's a composite diagram of what's going on underneath the Guercif basin, taken from Sani et al, Matine & Petroleum Geology, 2000. Note, very unusually, the horizontal and vertical scales are the same. If you have a Golden Ticket, you might win the prize for finding the most attractive Triassic/Jurassic/Neogene anticline in the area, if not the whole of Morocco. Clue - it's right in the middle, under Guercif.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-Composite-ProRle-across-Guercif-Basin-For-location-see-Fig-2_fig3_46603074

If you're really bored, click on the 'view publication' button, and it's Figure 3. Figure 2 shows the location of the numbers on the cross section (which is a zigzag, not a straight line). Figure 4 shows the geological sequences, including those found in some of the early boreholes. You can see that only borehole TAF-1X got as deep as the Lower Jurassic (which is where MOU-4 ended and found gas), and also see that why TAF-1X's location was in the wrong place for finding a hydrocarbon accumulation.

Once a couple of holes have been stuck deep into that nice juicy anticline, I suspect the posts here will be speculating about the daily £¼ movements, which is a lot more interesting.