Member Info for KeithOz

@O&W. Sticky mud & shale are of similar density, so transmit seismic waves at the same velocity and show up the same on seismic plots. Sandstone, especially with 25% porosity, is a lot less dense, so is easily distinguished on the seismic plots, and can be seen still to be in the same place on the TWT (two-way-time) plot. I suspect they will be doing some recalibration of the seismic data, the sands could actually be a bit lower in physical depth than TWT data initially suggested, but they are certainly still there!

Some new info spotted - p.10, bottom right, is a diagram showing that the large slump area appears to have masked an extension to the MOU-Fan to the south east. This area has not previously featured as a potential reservoir target. I suspect it is separated from the current MOU-2 reservoir by a pretty hefty fault, I will investigate old data when I have time. But looks almost the same area as the MOU-2 reservoir.

MOU-A seems to be in the approximate position of the old proposed MOU-5 drill. If so, it is again separated from the current MOU-2 well by a large fault. It is of similar areal extent as MOU-2 and MOU-new masked area, but will drill into a deeper reservoir, which in itself is very interesting, since it will give an idea of just how big the whole gas-charged volume of the MOU-Fan actually is, and whether all three areas are linked at depth.

I will attempt to do another translation of the ever-changing well designations later, but now must finish preparing the girls' spag bol.

If there is new info, I hope it will be an official update on Morocco progress, but don't forget on December 20th we were told this is going on as well:

"An Engagement Letter with Optiva has been executed by the Company regarding any potential M & A transaction with, or an investment by parties directly into, Predator Oil & Gas Trinidad Limited ("POGT"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the company, to gain specific exposure to CO2 EOR activities. Any such external investment specifically into POGT would allow this project to progress simultaneously with Predator's other projects, while not diluting the value of those other projects."

Folks might be interested in reading this through - Cobre have similar ground to KAV, and these were targets that Dave Catterall successfully worked on - he is now consulting for KAV.

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20230201/pdf/45l5vqzxt2vrq8.pdf

Paragraph at top of p.5 - Significant Regional Exploration Potential - is worth reading. Sorry, I am not allowed to copy & paste. Also see p.7 for a table that summarises their exploration process - it all takes a while!

Louis10 - reported for constant promotion of a subscription service, and filtered. Suggest others help clean up this otherwise useful board, and do the same.

MEM - please do not pilot your aircraft for at least the next 24hrs.

Nigel, I thought that you had at least a spark of intelligence. I can infer the answers to all four questions. The market obviously cannot, and dislikes uncertainty most of all. The reason I have asked them is for Paul Griffiths to give the answers publicly, which would help clear up some major areas of uncertainty. Maybe he can, maybe he can't.

btw, you have on numerous occasions been asked about your qualifications, experience and track record relevant to oil & gas exploration and investment therein. I don't mean that you once attended a lecture on fizz gas. How about enlightening us all, so that we can determine if you are justified in putting other people down all the time?

Hi Jimmy, I had said yesterday that I thought the gas shows from 500-680m were very slight, and most likely biogenic. That conclusion was because the MOU-2 shows correlate with shale, likely to have a high carbon content, converted to methane by bacteria in situ. The shallow gas shows that they are proposing to test in MOU-1 appeared to correlate with sand formations, which would have a low TOC, suggesting that this MOU-1 gas is thermogenic. There was also a substantial interval of around 1% biogenic gas in MOU-1, but I have not seen any suggestion that this would be commercial.

@Polemic. Really? I've found that geology degrees are very good for paying bills. In fact, I can't think of a single geologist (and I know scores of 'em) who hasn't been able to pay their bills and still have plenty left over. As for yachts - geologists are by nature terrestrial rather than marine, and also know very well the truth of the old adage "the second-best day in your life is the day you buy your yacht". The best day of course being when you are able to offload it onto some other poor sucker.

I have listened to the Sunday Roast again, and re-read yesterday's posts here. In an attempt to summarise the unanswered questions raised here, I have submitted the following questions to IMC:

1. Is Predator fully funded to complete drilling of MOU-2, and test both MOU-1 and MOU-2?

2. What is the timeline for MOU-1 flow testing - will results be released before MOU-2 is flow tested?

3. Do you agree that the effective seal suggests that the gas cloud is due to a fill-to-spill situation, and if so, do you think this indicates that gas volumes are more likely to be at the P10 rather than P50 levels?

4. Do you think that the unexpected lithology will result in a deeper than expected reservoir, which in turn will give greater gas volumes?

I have also sent these questions to the company via Flagstaff, with this covering note:

"Following the Sunday interview, the many private investors who use the lse bulletin board still have a number of questions. I have summarised these and submitted them for the IMC for the Wednesday 1st interview. I am aware that time limits mean that questions are often not addressed during such forums, so am sending them here to ensure that we obtain a response. Thanks for your patience."

Thanks for the helpful advice @donalb, it's just gone midnight here so time for bed.

Gas is already guzzling out of every orifice - just read Charlotte's post at 12.48. She once again displays either: 1. no understanding at all, or 2. a continuation of her campaign of running down the company and management for her own financial agenda. I originally thought (a few months ago) that a balanced alternative view was being presented, but this has deteriorated into pure unadulterated trolling.

Just one point she makes -"NO gas to the point they have drilled. All the 'experts' here stating evidence on logs... WRONG".
The log shows there is probably biogenic gas (produced in situ, clearly stated by me to almost certainly be non-commercial) between 500-680m, but there is indeed no thermogenic gas (from the deeper reservoir). Why is that? - the reservoir has not yet been reached, and there is a 200m thick seal above the reservoir preventing that gas from escaping.

There's only one thing on this board thicker than 200m.

...and the seal covers an area of 10km x 4-5km.

@Zeus. You asked if they had cased the borehole. Here is a link to the striplog:

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

You will see the centre section contains written descriptions - those in red relate to drilling procedures. From 0 - 69m the bore was drilled at 444mm diameter, then cased. From 69 - 680m drilling continued at a not-stated diameter, but probably 300mm. This was then cased. Below 680m drilling was at 216mm diameter, standard for O & G bores that will be wireline logged, although slimline logging in a narrower bore is possible. It does not appear to have been cased below 680m at this stage, since they will presumably wish to go down to TD at this diameter - if they cased, that would restrict the borehole and they would need to use a slimmer drill to go further. That's not a good idea, since it could make wireline logging more difficult.

I agree with what Jimmy said yesterday, and suspect they may now wish to drill a bit further than previously planned, perhaps an additional 250m down to a new TD of 1750m. They will simply re-drill the hole from 680m, which will mostly be unobstructed, so very quick, then down to the new TD using 216mm (8½') all the way. They must already be very close to the sandstone target, so once the mud is stabilised, the last drilling should be straightforward (famous last words!).

@Razorman. 1km = 1000m. 1km² = 1000 x 1000 = 1 million m². 30km² = 30 million m². Have another coffee :-)

Hit the POST button by mistake!

Continued ...If you want to include the gas charge of 66% per the CPR, that brings the GIIP down to 1.75 TCF. You can then reduce that by the CPR recoverable figure also of 66%, that brings it to 1.15 TCF. Take your pick.

@Vegas. A very rough approximation would be Area x Depth x GEF x Porosity.

As an example, you have a structural closure of 30km², 50m of net pay, GEF of 200, Porosity of 25%. I might have a reason for choosing those numbers!

30,000,000m² x 50m = 1.5 Billion m³. x GEF of 200 = 300 Billion m³. x 0.25 = 75 Billion m³.

Then, don't forget that 1m³ = 35.3147 ft³.

So, 75 Billion m³ x 35.3147 = 2.65 TCF.

But I did say a very rough approximation.

First phrase should read "Could the maths be 'interesting'!!" Sorry, poor editing.

"Could the maths be 'interestingover a gre'!!" was asked at 13.25. Redbox answered "Yawn zzz" at 13.51. My answer, as usual :-) , is a little longer.

1. You may recall my analogy of an inverted teacup on an inverted pudding basin. A deeper than expected reservoir will put us well into pudding basin territory, giving a larger area and so a much greater volume of gas. The 1000' of net pay is still possible, and that alone would put us near the P10 (Best Estimate) Resource

2. A deeper reservoir will be at a higher pressure, since there is a greater weight of overlying rock and a higher geothermal temperature. The 2022 CPR used a gas expansion factor of 140, meaning that each cubic foot of gas at reservoir temperature and pressure will equal 140 cubic feet at atmospheric temperature & pressure. I have said before that a GEF of 140 looked a bit low to me, given that MOU-1 was at 2700psi, which is seriously more than you would expect at that depth. If the reservoir is found to have a GEF of 210 - still conservative - increase the amount of gas by a further 50%.

Yawn or Yummy?

The Georgina Energy "Research Note" is of course actually a sales brochure, so should be read with a degree of cynicism. I last looked at this when it was a Mosman project, it has progressed little since then.

Yes, there is He & H in the Amadeus & Officer Basins, where a salt deposit forms a seal over a gas-generating granitic basement. It's just not yet proven that there is any gas on the Georgina licences, which are a small part of the Basins' area.

The comparison with HE1 is pure sales talk. The quoted prospective resource seems to assume 10% He concentration throughout for Georgina, 4.4% for HE1. HE1 is far ahead in terms of exploration. Georgina claims to have two wells already, but these are former natural gas wells that they may or may not be able to renter and deepen, and may or may not find H and/or He. Where the hell did the figure of $110 billion government infrastructure investment come from? That's $4,400 from every man woman & child in Australia. I can only assume that is infrastructure for the whole of Australia, which is a VERY large country, so is completely irrelevant for this project. There are a few other questionables here.

I strongly suggest prospective investors do some serious research of their own. Would you buy car solely on the recommendation of a commission-only salesman?