Member Info for Surfit

Unfortunately with regards to Anchois/ Lixus ENOG are the Operators (for now) and the news flow must first come through them to either general public and CHAR. CHAR have no say on what is presently going to happen or happening, only until ENOG let them kñow can they then issue their own statement.

With regatds to CHARs Loukos Gas, Renewables, Water, Hydrogen or cash reserves/ funding that is another matter.

Rather frustrating and not good for one's h(w)ealth!

Rgds Sft

Good logic Jt. Excellent discussions on this board.

Rgds Sft

Good points and discussions Surety, Jt, oildr and bold.

For me I was surprised that they did not drill one more location (back to Contingency again) the costs of mobilisation and transit although reduced from operational would still have warranted another drill/location????

Some news flow must come through soon its comming up to 5 months now?

GLA

Rgds Sft

Hi Surety,

IMHO I think the results from A3 were a significant disappointment but should NOT have ever been shock to them or ENOG, Duncan put it at a 60% (😂) and low risk but if you ĺook at the farm out statistics it a lot lower. People can SELL it at 60% but ENOG were not fools, hence the deal they struck.

See this artical below, quite illuminating.

https://www.offshore-mag.com/drilling-completion/article/14290736/westwood-global-energy-group-evidence-suggests-lower-returns-from-farm-in-exploration-wells-report-finds

Here is also a decent read.

Last section on Risking and Psychology

In particular is illuminating when comparing risk on exploration vs appraisal drilling and the appraisal foot falls.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/risking-appraisal-development-wells-within-oil-gas-fields-alan-foum

Although the data evaluation has got better the FAT AND EASY reservoirs have decreased over time and discoveries.

AP our CEO (the miner) kept playing down Anchois-3 importance during that July presentation and proffesed he did not know why the SP was so low....MMMMM 🤔

I have a feeling we going to find out if the BODs and SOCGEN relationship has been effective.

If OBA-1 is no good, they really should give up on the exploration business, after 17yrs of trying....please god not Nambia again.

Have you seen the artical regarding Shell deciding not to develop their find alone...i.e. need a consortium after spending $ 400 million!

All just posted for interest only.

All the best Sft

With what happens with Anchois, ENOG need to give it the GO or NO GO (and leave).

Kind rgds Sft

Hey Surety & Jt

Just listened again to the July presentation, and recommend other to have another listen.

AP and Duncan clearly state the intention to flow test OBA-1 many times though out, also stating (around 41:09 mins in) "Loukos it is the quickest route for CHAR to get to get income...but that depends on the flow test results".

Duncan was stating (43:05mins) they would expect 1 to2 mcf per day to be commercially viable.

Why no flow testing then, unless they are trying to get someone to pay for it? OR worst case scenario their calcls are wrong (Again)

Anchois/Lixus/Rissina: It was interesting that AP was stressing the drilling of Anchois East was not to to find weather they do or do not find gas but to determine the scalability of the project. That turned out to be a bit off the mark, certainly from ENOGS CEO perceived / stated comments. Although, we must note ENOG have not officially Via RNS) pulled out yet (I will have a look at their website for any comments).

Duncan states: 23:33mins in the case that the "option" is not exercised they would have to fund their share of the development, they are confident they can do that , with out dilution of equity raise, though SOCGEN and are in advanced discussions with local banks plus key strategic partners. The up side is that they would retain 30% holding.

Sft note: It does demonstrate the have a plan B (IMHO) and that they (by AP mentioning twice the out come of Anchois east not being crucial????? ) If ENOG still agree to that we officially do not know a 100% (is Sft clutching at straws...big maybe...but its not over till we read the print)

Jt fully correct on Duncan's comments regarding redrilling A1

For ENOG farm in See RNS: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CHAR/partnership-agreements-signed-with-energean-plc-enkku71n7f3k4fi.html

Electricity: Discussed the ETNA wheeling, not much mentioning on the mines renewables. But stressing financing coming at a subsidiary level with them retaining the controlling stakes

Hydrogen: As per RNS Feasibility study completed: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CHAR/completion-of-feasibility-study-green-hydrogen-57klznivi88ymc4.html

Intention to execute a phased development with a first phase renewable capacity of 3 GW, powering up to 1.6 GW of electrolysis capacity, to produce 150 kt of green hydrogen per annum

Next steps include completion of investment framework, engineering conceptual study and offtake negotiations.

Sft notes: No changes to above RNS from March....CHARS CEO plan (Slide 15) Hydrogen financing, development and construction 2 yrs.

Namibia: No real information looking into it.

Additional comments: Start of presentation - the 6 million fund raise: 2 million on balance sheet, 2million on New ventures and 2 million on OBA-1 flow test and finalise with Vivo.

Again Jt, thanks for the prompt to revisit, and Surety you were right its Lokous most likely but very interested (obviously) with what happens with Anchois, ENOG need to give

Found it via char website

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/companies/chariot-limited

Thank you.

Rgds Sft

Hey Jt, is that July 24 QnA on the Chariot Energy website.

Kind regards Sft

Hi Jt, will do and thank you.

It's sometimes hard to piece all the information together. That is rather important. I have a tendency to review only the RNSs and forget some of the verbalise information (or as Surety reminded us to look at CHARs actual website).

CHAR do not seem to make it easy to understand the actual realities of the gas safety status, readiness or what needs to be done.

The other pillars are even more "mercurial".

It does not lend itself, when clear information is not presented, to a feeling of misinformation or at best confusion.

Thanks again.

I will email in directly and see if they can reply to a direct question(s)

Kind rgds Sft

Hey jt,

Are you sure? Your saying: ".....I believe any reduced development will still need another drill, as A1 is NOT suitable for production....."

According CHARs website:

Anchois-1 gas discovery – previously audited total remaining recoverable resource in excess of 1 Tcf, comprising 361 Bcf 2C contingent resources and 690 2U prospective resources.

The appraisal and exploration well, Anchois-2, drilled safely, on time, and on budget, discovered excellent quality, dry gas across seven reservoirs with approx. 150m net pay.

https://chariotenergygroup.com/operations/transitional-gas/

Why complete a FEED with out knowing what and where you can produce.

My understanding was, according to their own RNS wording

Anchois Engineering and Design Update

8 Mar 2023 07:00 RNS Number : 2161S

"......"We have made excellent progress across all aspects of our planned development for Anchois and detailed discussions on partnering, gas sales agreements and project finance continue concurrently as we move towards Final Investment Decision....."

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CHAR/anchois-engineering-and-design-update-bhleu7ujn8hp7q5.html

No mention of further drilling required, only after ENOG got the farm in did we and the market get the new direction and changes...hence where we are now...it was not the original and sold to investors/market plan.

Hey Surety,

It will play out soon enough I think.

Kind Rgds Sft

Hey Gardie,

Thank you for your comment. All I can think of is as ENOG are now the operators it is now down to ENOG to make the first/leading comments on Rissina (and therefore Anchois) as they are now in control of its yay or nay development. If they chose not to develop OR further explore with seismic (as in farm in deal) then they terminate the farm in....now what I am not clear on is do they hand back to CHAR OR do they pass on / or sell to another. I do not know what has been written in the contract. Once that has been decided they would also need the agreement of ONHYM. I in truth just do not know what was set up, possibly all part of "plan B" and CHARS contingency in that if they do not develope its handed back to them as pre farm in.

That would make sense, in CHAR management not forcing through the small development but getting it returned (to CHAR) if ENOG do not find the, post A3 drilling, the field big enough. That would be the smart move.

That in theory looks good, and some might think okay back to pre farm in SP, but of course A3 has been disproved and the field LOOKS to have been diminished? ALTHOUGH AT Anchois-3 ( the EAST leg of the reservoir).

Again Gardie, these are just MY speculations AND I stress I am not a specialist in drilling, reservoir engineering or seismic surveys/ data etc etc.

Jimmy may not ever consider company financing but he does seem (he has never said) to come from a geologist/ Seismic back ground? and may be able to provide some thoughts, if he is still invested.

Best Rgds Sft

Hey Snapper,

It looks very bad, as the market and therefore the SP shows: No income, diminishing cash, the poor farm in with ENOG, Lokous uncertainty I.e. why no flow test to prove its production rate for prospective farm in or why can we not secure self finance, power deal and wheeling not really explained, renewables for Mining company's no income, water desalination gross $80K (is that before or after op costs, why bought? and Hydrogen still being worked up to begin a feasibility study???? Note: as I have mentioned before and with the link I previously posted there is VERY SIGNIFICANT financing out there to move that forward.

BUT that's why I mention and struggle over the contingency planning.....they can not be so very incompetent that if A3 failed there was NO plan B....something must have been detailed and evaluated????

Time will reveal all: Positively or negatively.

All IMHO.

Rgds Sft

Hey Gardie,

The real bit for me is still by not including a confirmed development of Anchois-2 as the completed FEED was designed to do, in the ENOG farm in agreement, it was a major share price fall catalyst. During negotiations there MUST have been significant discussions around this omission. The CHAR effectively reintroduced significant risk.

Any offshore operation workscope or project that includes a significant unknown element has contingency built in: If we find as expected do A, if not move to B.

Risk assessment is conducted not just on safety but on operational tasks and also financial implications. Risk assessment is the most basic steps. These guys are meant to have significant experience in the industry:

ANDREW HOCKEY, JULIAN MAURICE-WILLIAMS. Chief Financial Officer and DUNCAN WALLACE Technical Director would have failed in the MOST basic project management elements.

Adonis is basically a CEO in mining, he has invested into founding the company and captaining it.

If the risk was there, which it obviously was, they (both ENOG and CHAR) must have (again by the shear fact the FEED completed development was not included) have planned moves should Anchois-3 not be as hoped.

It's Clutching at straws but I am incredulous if there is not a plan B?

They would be TOTTALY derelict of the duties to have not have. So a "suprise" (Duncan Wallace has 20 years asa geologist in Oil & Gas) can not be part of the equation????

Just as I see it with 30yrs of work in OnG.

BUT maybe they really are inept, I do say it feels very much that they are...Time will by April tell. We will be broke.

PS Ripley, if your calling me a ramper, that's highly amusing I have been consistently accused as a deramper or even liar ...by trying to point out concerns (Risk) during the process since the Stena Don find.

GLA...we are going to need it.

Kind regards to all.

Sft

Hey Gardie, I just do not understand their business decisions.

I was fully in for the gas but, the Anchois FEED completed project was planned to be in production by now, the fact they signed up to a gamble if unfathomable. All I can think of ( worst case scenario) is post FEED the project's costs were not covering the gas income si they had to go with ENOG. I doubt (hope) that was the case. I suspect they believed Duncan Wallace on a 80% chance if success, and got out manoeuvred on the contract by a experienced operators...

I just do not know how long it takes to reprocess seismic date by incorporating the drilling results from onshore 2x AND the Anchois-3.

It must be all done by now. So is it down to negotiations or ENOG exiting?????

The trouble is ENOG are now the operator and firmly in the driving seat.

The PURE gamble now is they get a acceptable gas contract with ONHYM and sanction, although will probably squeeze CHAR again?

Still if it happens it's a rerate, 10/12p imho.

"Forlorn hope"

Rgds Sft

I know I am taking a (BIG) RISK

20-Jan-25 11:41:24 1.9228 260,051 Buy* 5,000 O

I am NOT advising people to follow, but I am reducing my average. IMO CHAR will either get something across the line or go bankrupt.

People adding will not shift this up in ANY suitable way only some good news will rerate the SP. The risk of share placing on a rerate imo remains TOO high.

ONLY by management securing an income AND real financing, reducing director costs AND making the correct business decisions.

I am so far in the hole, I have to take the gamble.

I remain highly sceptical the management are up to the task or can regain the trust of (original OR new) investors, financial institutions or even partners business or governmental)

We will see. All I can hope, drinking in the last chance saloon, they may actually start really fighting.

I am genuinely thinks there is some income to be gained from the gas and there is opportunities for hydrogen funding BUT with out the directors securing a income win their reputations are as presently in ruin.

Rgds Sf

Thank you for the cash review Surety

Rgds Sf

HC nor am I disputing we are in a dire position.

If you compare SDX share price, shares in issue and fundamentals compared to CHARS IT currently it does not look too (understatement) good.

I am actually more drawn to the Hydrogen potential (securing funding, see below) inf only CHAR could secure an income to maintain their out goings.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-uae-egypt-consortium-sign-34-bln-deal-hydrogen-project-mauritania-faz-2023-03-08/

It does look as if the gas play is not going to provide a substantial income as Duncan Wallace had sold it as.

The field could be duds. But they have proved there is "some" there.

AS EVER: Income, income, income required and out going, out going reductions essential for CHARS survival.

Hey HC, What are you basing your opinion or even previous examples regarding the licence not getting renewed on? Fields can take 5 to even 10yrs to get to sanction or even despite snr operators spending millions on exploration and making significant finds deciding not to develop.

See Shell and Nambia below:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-writes-down-namibia-oil-discovery-2025-01-08/

CHAR have actually secured an operator to potentially develop Rissina. Not in the way they said they were...i.e the small Anchois-2 FEED development.

There is simply no way the licences renewal will not be granted. You are showing your lack of knowledge, and respectfully suggest you do some further research.

I am not disagreeing with your concerns, with regards CHARS management of thier business, not withstanding the salarys but (apart from APs, who has brought in millions but is taking too much out). The rest are fitting to the industry average.

My concern is not flow testing OBA-1, if it has the 3 (not 4) mmscfd that they signed as part of the delivery (after OBA-1 drilling) why not prove it to prospective farm out partners?

HC your of course welcome to your opinions, but please try and substantiate them with previous examples to support your arguments. Other wise you unfortunately come across as a just disruptor.

Kind rgds Sft

Hey Fernan, it does seem strange that they would not secure such an income, I had always thought that was the whole point of LOUKOS???.....

Signing of New Moroccan Onshore Licence

1 Aug 2023 07:00. RNS Number : 8133H

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CHAR/signing-of-new-moroccan-onshore-licence-j1baq4mbodkt841.html

Last comments from Wallace in RNS

"..........In securing the Loukos licence, we have continued to build on our unique position within a basin-scale opportunity and WE are committed to DEVELOPING this asset as QUICKLEY as possible."

Maybe be your opening comment "If Loukos is economically viable...." holds the key and IF being the unfortunate point?

Something pivotal has to happen very soon (imo).

As before September wad end Stena Forth drilling.

Rgds Sft

HC expirey of licence is immaterial: its a renewal process. Nothing to be concerned about ( reference previous observations in similar scenarios).

Re the exploration vs development its all be said on previous posts.

Re the change in farm out agreement that would be highly unusual. I still see a seismic as required. But reevaluation of data following Anchois-3(finished 16th Sept 2024) , not a geologist in any way, but as It's been 4 months since Anchois-3: they should a have some sort of CLUE by now, but maybe revaluationg the whole of Rissina, maybe is not just as simple as "add data in and it "run" button. Do not know. Do you?

On conclusion of data Re-evaluation AND IMO:

Re-evelation of Subsea Alliance FEED costs, discussions/ conformations on prices for gas contract (to assess original A1-A2project financial viability) Energean will make the call on what they want to do: 1. Go ahead with scaled down ops

2. Conduct seismic for more info. Then reassessment AGAIN

3. Pull out. Hand back to Chariot.

Time lines all in Energeans favour, as they have the cash and borrowing infrastructure in place to persuade larger potential projects (Egypt), but that will require more exploration costs.

The hope is the reprocessed data is okay, they get a good gas contract and Sanction. All though the farm out carry will of course have to be renegotiated.

I am REALLY STILL TOTTALY DUMFOUNDED THIS IS NOT ALL IN A CONTINGENCY. OnG operations down too just common workscopes ALWAYS BUILD IN CONTINGENCY. If not there is NO hope for CHARs credibility as directors & Managers.

I am hoping, maybe like the " forlorn hope" it's all down to data and gas negotiation.

All IMHO's

Rgds Sft