Member Info for OilAnalyst

Planning here is an administrative step rather than a material risk (the Environmental clearance has been given and Chris McDonald MP is the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at both DESNZ and DBT and is the constituency MP for Stockton North, with Billingham (the new site) in his constituency.

That said, how IMO this will work in practice is that the DBT grant will cover the "risk money" (long lead items and remainder of pre-construction costs). When I refer to FID, I refer to the ALK/TVL Board resolution to proceed with the project and commit risk money ie "we are going to build this." IMO and experience everything has been negotiated in parallel for months using a harmonized model. The Boards can declare "FID" when the DBT grant commitment letter received, conditional NWF equity subscription agreement signed (this is the return to the Exchequer), conditional UKEF guarantee letter (to reduce Debt interest costs), conditional project equity agreement signed (ARA or strategic OEM equity with offtake for remaining 60% Train#1), conditional ABG debt agreement and planning application submitted (but not yet determined).

When planning and all CP's are met, Financial Close and drawdown occurs.

The Tata/Agratas gigafactory and Pentland Floating Offshore Wind projects followed a similar trajectory.

When the DBT announces the grant letter (which could be any time), that tells investors the whole funding stack is done.

This is my best judgement. In principle, NWF equity can be used for "risk money" but in the TVL case, using the triple combo of NWF, grant and guarantee is in the best interests of Gov and the project - which will be set up to be robust enough to self fund a further 3 Trains. That's the objective that best meets the Exchequer goals of return to tax payers, UK mine-to-battery supply chain and 1000s of jobs.

*ABG Bond above

This is wrong. Every element of the financing stack can be agreed conditionally before planning permission is granted at Billingham. Planning is a Condition Precedent to first construction drawdown - not to FID, not to financial close, not to the announcement of the financing package. This is standard project finance structuring and is how virtually every major industrial project in the UK has been financed over the past 20 years.

A government Grant, Debt guarantee or NWF role announcement can happen at any time. This is the most likely path and will lead to conditional commitments on the rest of the stack (strategic equity + conditional offtake, ARA bond).

The Company had originally aimed to raise A$10 million.

I cant see that they wont be aiming to raise this less the interim funds raised in October; so c. A$5 million.

If they can put it away this year, that would be the preference as they are currently cash constrained.

ENOG enters into the contract as the Operator on behalf of the JV. That JV undertaking is material to CHAR as it commits a material value of their carry and they would be obliged to RNS it. Been in this situation many times myself....

Surety, we're into the realms of pure speculation here, but a few points can be made:

- CHAR has an obligation under LSE rules to report material change immediately, such as a new contract for drilling (they previously RNS'd the rig had been demobbed, so it would be a material change). The materiality test for CHAR, now at £20mln MC, is not the same as for ENOG.

- Stena is private and has no obligation to make press releases. The slot was only ever an option, so they may have had other work interest should ENOG not exercise, as was the case.

You never enter into a rig commitment without having partner approval on the well and its final cost.

If they've done this, it really should be RNS'd by CHAR

Unfortunately that is not how it works; to exercise a rig option the operator has to provide notice prior to the end of the firm well commitment.

ENOG did the opposite and demobilised the rig and the services.

It's possible they've fast-tracked a review and are entering into a new commitment whilst the rig was idle; but that would be a material event for CHAR given they've RNS'd the demob of the rig.

If ENOG had entered into a new commitment with SF for Anchois, this would be a material event and require an RNS by CHAR.

Stena wouldnt update their website unless it was a signed undertaking.

Agree there is no issue with the Instillation Licence process. Just ambiguously worded RNS; the little further progress referred to since last reported on which was only a few weeks ago. Was an unnecessary statement. In any case, the licence is not needed until a processing plant is required at much higher production. Crusher and sorter is all they need in the interim.

Chrisp, how are you interpreting the cash position being ok to April monies please. Are you referring to the £300k Receivable (what is this?) or has CB referred to a working capital plan/bridge in the AGM (which I couldnt attend)? Thanks

IG: the rig is fine for the task (obs ignoring the lack of spare parts procured) and agree with Joe that it's gotta be just probs with comms and lack of experience.

Joe, it doesnt make much sense to me.

Their 5th Oct RNS said they're drilling 8.5" hole. Although it also said they were drilling this out of the 13 3/8" shoe which is not the normal convention. Even that is at odds with the last CEO interview where she said they had run 9 5/8" in the 17 1/2" hole.

What is clear is that the casing shoe in the latest tweet sure as hell doesnt look like 7" casing.

It's either an old picture or the CEO doesnt know her well design in her comms.

And all of this is at odds with the "5 days to TD" statement she made earlier in the well which would have to mean the whole reservoir section was being designed to be drilled in 1 hole size.

Anyone taken up comms with the company on this?

Clem: I normally add contingency for the time that the bit is not on bottom (check trips, bit trips, circulating up gas etc) and the ROP will be slow in the basement. Monday is possible but more likely tuesday or Wednesday; again if no change in plan.

Gogs: i havent studied all the photos but would assume any 20" was used for the conductor.

Looking at the image of the BOP stack posted on Twitter yesterday, my interpretation of the status of drilling and the well design is:

- The Conductor was drilled out with down to a competent rock interval above the prognosed top Helium target in the Lake beds. This would have been a few hundred meters. This section would normally not be drilled with a BOP but a diverter. The diverts any uncontollable gas influx away from the rig rather than trying to close it in with a BOP in very soft rocks.

- LB said they were going to do some logging. This could have been done open hole or maybe cased hole including cement integrity logging.

- The top hole casing was then cemented in place and this is then when the BOP would be installed; which is what we are seeing in the image.

- We are now drilling ahead through the Lake beds. The ROP is likely +-200m/d although will certainly slow at the end in the basement.

- My estimate is that we will reach TD mid next week assuming the hole section is drilled in the same hole size and they dont do any intermediate logging. Any delays would likely be due to securing logging data as they go and/or installing intermediate casing if hole conditions dictate.

- The image

Jonathan Swann has been taking TR1 stakes in a number of Small Caps recently and knows what he's doing.

I would guess there's some good drilling news to come and this goes on a run.

The new shares are locked in and I wouldnt be surprised if he buys more in the market.

Interesting that no-one is selling below 15p today...

I'm seeing this as a positive.

Jimmy, how are you interpreting the MOU2 targets then?
- the primary TGB-2 target was prognosed at 1194mD (and shallower TGB sands from 937m); all of which had gas shows in MOU-1.
- the MOU-2 mudlog confirms the top of the Moulouya fan at 1041mD; below the interpreted mud flow. Should we not expect to see gas shows here?

I'm aware the RNS states that the [deeper] targets have not been penetrated yet, but how do you interpret the 220m interval below the muds to TD? If this whole section is detached, I'm confused why the RNS refers to only a 28m section at the base of the well being detached?

If all we are talking about is that there's some deeper undrilled targets still to drill and that the shallower targets must be isolated from gas bearing MOU-1 equivalents, then I get it and it comes down to intra-sand seals needing to work. If so, the RNS doesnt say this clearly.

Appreciate it's perhaps unfair to ask you these questions, but your comments suggest you have satisfied yourself with what the well is showing us.

ATB

Hi Jimmy, welcome your views here. Any explanation as to how there can be no gas on the mudlog and structure be valid at this location (it seems we are at the target depth)?

His updated Linkedin this morning:
"Despite [Caracal] being an exciting company I made the decision to resign as I had not made the progress I felt was needed in my agenda to bring transparency, clarity of reporting and long term financial planning to the company. "

All happened whilst he was at the helm.

You cant conclude 2 major, convertible loan note agreements and accept an OCIM condition that is contrary to Kenyan law (even if this was added post signing by OCIM) without immediate disclosure.

Agenda's dont come into it!

Trust needs to be regained urgently.

Aimster, you raise good questions on why PRD didnt do a farm-out deal and what would be done with oil in the case of a major discovery.

On the farm-out: the PRD terms were a really tough ask (I've not heard of terms like this for 10 years). PRD was only willing to cede 25% equity, retain operatorship and was asking for a put option on the interest upon discovery. The fact that this didnt happen is not a failure. Frankly, it is a testament to the quality of the opportunity that several companies gave this serious consideration. The fund raise at 5.5p/sh is better value for shareholders than diluting the project by more than the 25% on offer.

As to where oil would go. In the case of a major discovery, there can be no doubt that the Moroccan government would solve this. Currently, oil products are all imported. There's 2 options: revamp the existing refinery at Mohammedia or install a new mini refinery (say 25k bopd). In the US the latter would cost c. $250mln. Obs would cost more in Morocco but that's the ballpark. Major onshore oil discoveries are NEVER stranded!