Member Info for KeithOz

@Dorsal - yes, not far to the west, in the same basin. What is particularly interesting is that despite oil being sucked out of T & T for 100 years, they are still finding new prospects. This new one, in TRIN's Jacobin-1 well with a very impressive 90m nett pay, is deeper than has previously been drilled in the area. Paul has pointed out that so far Cory Moruga has only had shallow drilling, and believes there is a lot more oil deeper down. I understand that the new CPR will mention 15 MMbbls, not sure how deep the assessment goes at this stage.

@Paname. I guess (and it is no more than that) that PRD took the opportunity to take the placing right up to the threshold figure of 20%. I have heard that up to £20M was actually offered. I was also asked on Telegram why bother with the time & cost of a Prospectus, when they could just wait two weeks and go ahead anyway. The answer is -

1/ Although the Prospectus is not necessary for issuing the 91M placing shares after 23rd August, it is still necessary to issue Paul & Lonny's replacement shares and also confirm the expanded headroom of 200M shares agreed at the last AGM, ie allow for further placings such as for CNG equipment purchase.

2/ Clearly the guys are in an indecent haste to get stuff done - why that is will become clear once the Prospectus is issued.

I note in the FCA rules that no advertising (I assume that includes social media interviews) may be done during the prospectus review period - hence the current radio silence.

A mention today of 'unconventional gas', coupled with a possible misunderstanding of what this might be and how it impacts PRD's testing of MOU-1. Perhaps some history might help.

06 July 2021 RNS. MOU-1. Reported low-level gas readings from 605m to TD at 1487m. A huge interval.

15 Dec 2021 RNS. MOU-1. "High mud weights with some drilling mud invasion of the perforable zones are thought to have reduced the calculated saturation"

28 Sept 2021 RNS. MOU-1. "Evidence of gas over several hundred metres of gross section".

08 Sept 2022 Presentation, P.8. "MOU-1 perforation to target new shallow gas zone net P50 additional gas resource 21.65 BCF".

Multiple sources confirm Nutech evaluation of 10m MOU-Fan TGB2 nett reservoir interval over six zones in MOU-1. Discussion then concentrated on these zones, with no further mention of the other potential MOU-1 gas until:

18th May 2023. Presentation p.19. "unconventional gas MOU-1 to be included in new CPR".

I believe it is the very substantial interval of MOU-1 gas outside the 6 Nutech zones that constitutes what Paul was referring to as unconventional gas. As indicated above, the apparent low levels recorded may actually be a lot higher, so it is eminently sensible to test some of this potentially huge resource in MOU-1 which is not included in the January 2022 CPR. However, the gas concentration is likely to be well below the main target sands that are the subject of the CPR, hence the use of 'unconventional' - there may indeed be a need to use unconventional recovery techniques including horizontal drilling should testing indicate this additional resource to be economic.

I also recall Paul saying that they had detected biogenic gas at shallow levels within MOU-1, rather than the thermogenic gas found elsewhere - so he may be using the term 'unconventional' in that sense. Can anyone recall when Paul said that? - I can't find the reference atm.

Anyway, we should see at least a further reference to this in the new CPR in the next couple of weeks, and will also find out the scope of the testing programme in evaluating what could be an additional source of gas, as yet not incorporated into an issued resource statement.

I am just recovering from reading this:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRR.pdf

My understanding of how the Prospectus Regulation Rules relate to the placing currently underway is based on the above booklet:

* An approved Prospectus is necessary if shares exceeding 20% of those already in issue are proposed to be issued within a 12-month period.

* Approval of such Prospectus would normally be within 10 working days of submission, if revisions are required by the FCA, the 10-day period restarts on resubmission of the amended Prospectus.

* On 23rd August 2022, PRD placed 60M shares. These and subsequent issues have used up the 20% placing headroom that started on 23rd August 2022 - so there is CURRENTLY no headroom available.

* If by 23rd August 2023, the currently submitted Prospectus has not been approved by the FCA, a new period of headroom availability will start, sufficient for issue of the placing currently underway.

So, the current placing will either:

* be issued after Prospectus approval before 23rd August 2023, or

* be issued without Prospectus approval after 23rd August 2023.

Simples. If you disagree, don't troll me, take it up with the FCA.

@Fart123 once again trying to undermine confidence in HE1 - all he ever does, never posts anything useful. For the record, I am an Australian resident and have Australian broking accounts, but I am invested in HE1 and not in NHE.

There are a lot of reasons for that, but the primary one is the major red flag that prevents many Australians investing in NHE - they do not have a current CPR. Their so-called resources are based on management estimates, not those of an independent person or organisation that is qualified to prepare such estimates.

Minor reasons include:

* Helium at Rukwa migrates laterally as a result of volcanic activity from the Rungwe Volcanic Province to the southeast. Too close, you will only get CO2, too far away, and He concentrations will be too low. HE1's prospects are in the He migration sweet spot, NHE's are not.

* BMFC's are by their nature only going to be able to collect helium from 180° of the underlying rock area.

* HE1 has actually found helium at multiple depths, NHE has not.

* HE1 have their own fit-for purpose drill, NHE do not.

* HE1 have a number of different trap structures on their licences, NHE do not.

@colon - more likely olive oil! - https://aujourdhui.ma/archives/guercif-capitale-des-olives-89456

Now I have been able to obtain a high resolution picture, it appears to be three silos of some kind grouped close together, rather than a rig. Probably a false alarm - sorry 😕

Couple of Google Earth photos this week showing what I believe to be the site of JUR-1 / TIT-1 / MOU-5. Can be confirmed on Sentinel-2 - something else arrived on site yesterday.

https://twitter.com/KQuick20704342/status/1688360589561851905/photo/1 close up of MOU-5?

https://twitter.com/KQuick20704342/status/1688362795224776705/photo/1 view of all drill sites MOU-1 to 5.

Please feel free to present alternative opinions.

@donalb - There were several pallets of SLB Ultradrill showing in the photo taken in the PRD Guercif warehouse. It was originally used to drill MOU-1, but (together with slow drilling) led to borehole washouts. For MOU-2 they changed to a different drilling mud more suitable for friable sand conditions (Pure-Bore Silicate), then unfortunately hit the mud. Lab studies have apparently shown Ultradrill is better suited to get them through the mud layer, but risk remains. I expect they may still re-enter MOU-2, but because of the risk, probably after JUR-1.

@LIH - Is a sign that Predator will become the hegemon of the Moroccan gas market, goblin' up all the sales?

"Char and Sou have very significant GSA's while Griffs de facto one man band does not!"

This seems to be following the standard 'let's spread negative misinformation' agenda.

Sound Energy does indeed have gas sales agreements, with Moroccan distributor Afriquia Gaz (net income last year £43M) and with state-owned ONEE. In order to get things moving, SOU have had to farm out 40% of the Tendrara concession and take on a loan of $237M. I am curious as to what value (market cap £25M) will be left for current shareholders holding just 35% of the licence after payment of interest and capital on this loan.

Chariot does not have a gas sales agreement. On 12th December 2022, a CHAR RNS said "With the preliminary key principles now agreed, the Parties will continue discussions regarding Anchois with a view of concluding the binding gas sales agreement. Whilst there is no guarantee that these principles will be turned into a fully termed GSA, the parties are progressing with the next stage of documentation. The Company will provide further updates as required." There have been no further updates. I have not seen either a final costing for production infrastructure, or a final timeframe for production of gas. It is these open factors that appear to be driving their rush for onshore production.

PRD have three wells completed for imminent testing, all of which are designed to be producers. The detailed planning & costing for a CNG production facility was completed over two years ago by SLR Consulting, long lead time items are on order, and production can be commenced well in advance of either CHAR or SOU. The Guercif prospects sit astride the GME pipeline, PRD has automatic rights of access, and connection costs will be orders of magnitude cheaper than for the other companies. Gas sales agreements have already been discussed with a number of parties - as detailed in several RNSs - and will doubtless be signed as soon as definitive flow testing data is available - as I have said previously, it would be absolutely standard that both 'take-or-pay' and 'supply-or-pay' clauses would be in the contracts, and both parties would need to be sure that those targets can be met, with built in redundancy from multiple potential supply wells. Of course, PRD still holds 75% of the licence and is debt-free, so is in a strong position to choose the best partner.

All this nonsense posted here about difficulty in reversing pipeline flow, no market because of Shell supply contracts, lack of planning permission, local fire department adequacy, etc., is simply b.s. smokescreen from an ignoramus with zero experience in the gas industry, in fact no business experience at all, whose real agenda is to undermine PRD's credibility - it is nothing short of insulting to believe that Paul. Lonny, and their CNG consultants have not considered and addressed these issues.

"I expect more dirty tricks campaign activity. Within hours." GRH, Twitter, yesterday

If you have 15 mins spare, this is worth a watch - good general background info, including comments on oil & gas.

https://www.ubs.com/microsites/player/en/circle1-videoplayer.html?id=6329400098112&play=yes&__hstc=&__hssc=&hsCtaTracking=1d67c203-9c0e-432f-956b-f1e050e0ca75%7C433c143d-7d49-41bd-a6fe-7e470c0fecd9

Sometimes this bulletin board challenges the laws of physics that state it is not possible to be both scum and dregs.

Had you considered that it may be Lorna who is unhappy with how the 'old guard' were running the show? Since it is she who has identified where they should have drilled last time, and her appointee consultant (now FD) who has secured the rig, she probably has some justification.

FiremanSam on the other board has raised some questions on flow testing.

My short answer: I honestly don't know 🤣

Longer answer - clearly the testing programme is going to be far more comprehensive than originally planned, for reasons I have previously suggested. I have zero experience of sandjet testing, but assume you blast the holes over a section of a couple of metres of sealed-off bore, test the pressures and flow rates, then move the seals up and do the next bit. That way you know the sections most likely to be productive. Finally, I assume you would test the flow rates for the whole borehole. Originally 30/60/90 day flow tests were done to ensure that the reservoirs were large enough to supply flow at a constant pressure. This is still required for small reservoirs or for poor poroperm conditions, especially for fracked bores.

Often modern procedure is to use intermittent testing, done over a much shorter period - perhaps flow for a couple of hours, shut off for perhaps 6 hours, then start up again. This is repeated for perhaps 4 cycles during a total period of 1 - 2 days, with detailed measurements of both flow rates and pressures at each stage. From those measurements, longer term rates can be calculated. How long testing of perhaps 200m over 3 holes would take I really don't know.

I also don't know if they are planning to use transient pressure testing to confirm reservoir continuity between wells - here you would let off pressure in one well, and see if there is a corresponding pressure dip in the other test well. It may be that the wells are too far apart for this to be practical.

If anybody knows more about the possibilities of what could be involved, please let us all know!

@Edark. At this stage it is only speculation re the additional drill on the Jurassic. They needed £7M for testing and the other items, but raised £10M. Now, how much does an 8-day drill cost?

@NN. Yes, but this is purely speculation - I would have thought the waste land the other side of the road would have been preferable, but who knows?

I've just been asked for my Twitter address - sorry, I'm not easy to find: https://twitter.com/KQuick20704342

I'm only posting this to annoy our favourite troll. In the most recent presentation, Paul confirmed that the 'sweet spot' for the Jurassic carbonate prospect was 2.6km to the southeast of MOU-4. If you look at the attached Sentinel-2 satellite photo, you will see a prominent line running bottom left to top right, this is the Route Nationale 2, which heads south into Guercif town. In the middle of the photo, adjoining the road to the southeast, is a light-coloured rectangle in an otherwise dark area. The half of this rectangle next to the road, about the size of the other PRD drill pads, has changed surface between July 24th & 27th. I mention it since it is 2.7km to the southeast of MOU-4.

Very long link, you will probably need to copy & paste rather than just click:

https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/sentinel-playground/?source=S2&lat=34.27525117748458&lng=-3.3109788892033976&zoom=16&preset=CUSTOM&layers=B01,B02,B03&maxcc=97.155&gain=1.0&gamma=1.0&time=2023-02-01%7C2023-08-01&atmFilter=&showDates=false&evalscript=cmV0dXJuIFtCMDEqMi41LEIwMioyLjUsQjAzKjIuNV0%3D

RNS 12th May 2022 stated: "Predator Gas Ventures Ltd. has received final approval for the Environmental Impact Assessment for the MOU-4, MOU-5 and MOU-NE proposed drilling locations".

RNS of 24th October 2022 stated: "A location for the MOU-NE well (now designated MOU-3) was finalised during the recent site visit. MOU-3 will be the next well in the drilling sequence and will test a 35km² area within a larger Jurassic oil prospect. A Competent Persons Report is being commissioned to define the range of potential prospective oil resources for the MOU-3 trap."

For the benefit of newer readers, PRD has an unfortunate habit of changing the names of prospects and drill sites, and the order in which they have planned to drill them - so the Jurassic carbonate prospect formerly called MOU-NE is now the Titanosaurus Prospect. The drill site targeting the sweet spot on that prospect has been called MOU-3 in the past (not to be confused with the current MOU-3, which has been completed on the MOU-Fan prospect), and is currently unnamed - I prefer JUR-1 rather than TIT-1 ! The recently completed MOU-4 successfully intercepted both the MOU-Fan and the edge of Titanosaurus, and is not included in any of the above references.

Confused? You will be.

@Giddev - my initial thoughts were the same as yours, however as I said earlier today, this rather extreme action would not have been taken without an equally extreme reason. May I suggest we suspend judgement until the end of the month? I have a sneaking suspicion we will all be smiling broadly once we see the gas volume and flow rates.