Rainbow Rare Earths Phalaborwa project shaping up to be one of the lowest cost producers globally. Watch the video here.
We’ll Nigel
If that’s how you feel you may want to consider selling up and moving on.
I’m not because I’ve done my research and I know what we’re sitting on .
Big big smile.
Atb
Wacky
Yep you need to do more research chesh
I can do this all day long
Atb
Wacky
Not really Nigel
That’s why I asked you to contact the bod and ask the question.
That’s if you’re really interested in investing your hard earned cash in the company.
I’m very comfortable with my investment thank you.
I can do this all day long.
Atb
Wacky
Here you go cj
Don’t mind helping out on a legitimate question.
https://www.resolve.ngo/site-communityhealthguidebook/stage-3-exploratory-drilling.htm
Excerpt from the article:
At first, one exploratory well is typically drilled on a particular pad (although a number of exploratory wells may be drilled in a geographic area to estimate the extent of the resource)
Atb
Wacky
No Idea, why not ask the bod in a polite letter and if they tell you then you can post the reply on here for everyone’s benefit, be it good or be it bad.
Atb
Wacky
Oh dear is this the best you lot can do, you sure need to do some more research.
Another Ne er do well added to the list.
I can do this all day long.
Atb
Wacky
Don’t see any mathematical argument to dispel my research Nigel unless of course you’re working on something.
Ne er do well.
I can do this all day long.
Atb
Wacky
Some people on here sure do need to do some more research.
Must be starting to get under your skin not reaching yr sales targets.
Ne er do well.
Atb
Wacky
Some people on here sure do need to do some more research.
Must be starting to get under your skin not reaching yr sales targets.
Ne er do well.
Atb
Wacky
Morning all,
Excelsior.
FYI
I am not a city spiv or an insider or a trader.
I am a private investor with less than 500k shares and I have been here within a few weeks of the IPO.
I do not ramp, I also do not deramp, I post facts for the benefit of fellow shareholders who have an interest in the company.
I would suggest if you are in some way upset with the companies pr strategy you contact them directly and make your feelings known.
You could always immerse yourself in research as an option or do we tag you in the Ne er do we’ll brigade.
Your choice.
Atb
Wacky
Hi all,
The Ne`er-do-Wells have had a field day (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ne-er-do-well) with our company, so to add a little bit of substance in anticipation of a new CPR on Morocco I have enlightened myself with a small course on reservoir engineering. (not something I would be talking about in the Pub)
However a simple equation, potentially reveals what amount of gas is in the kitchen.
This chap explains the basics, admittedly you have to listen very carefully and try not to fall asleep but he does get there eventually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doIFrTx8t0
I'm not going to list my calculations but based on information we know of from RNs, presentations, GRF1 etc and working it into the equation gives an approximate gas in place for the stated 100km area.
Calculating Gas in Place by the Volumetric Method
Examples of :
https://petrowiki.spe.org/Dry_gas_reservoirs
and a nice little cross reference to Carbon Sequestration, calculating Hydrocarbons in place.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1033/OF2012-1033.pdf#:~:text=To%20obtain%20produced%20gas%20volume%20per%20acre-foot%20of,379%20to%20determine%20cubic%20feet%20of%20gas.%2014.
EQUATION.
G = 43,560 x 56,711,200 x 0.16 x (1 - 0.23) divide by 0.0067
G = gas in reservoir.
43,560 = Reservoir hydrocarbon volume in acre-foot rock.
56,711,200 = acre-ft.
0.16 = porosity (taken from GRF1)
0.23 = water saturation ( this figure is wild and used for illustration purposes only, may be less and if so gas figures will be higher or if greater than 0.23, gas figures will be lower)
0.00667 is the figure used in conjunction when a reservoir is pressurised at 2500 psia
( 2500/500 psia, also another little clue as per the video and RNs that PG talks to the industry and not the markets when releasing info)
So, If my numbers and I have interpreted the Gentlemen's teachings correctly, the gas in place is in the region of :
4.7 Trillion ft3
Pretty sure I've got the decimal point in the right place.
We will have to wait for a new CPR to confirm figures and also to state if the find is commercial but I'm now pretty much convinced that MOU1, MOU2 & MOU4 are all connected, MOU2 was put to one side because of the good numbers revealed in the mud logs and MOU4 became the next target to prove up the whole gas kitchen.
Talking of Mud Logs, a good little article comparing the readings taken from the shale shakers where we more than likely took our readings and the high tech kit employed to read the true readings of the concentrations (ppm) of C1 etc taken at the well head.
You will notice how our readings are very similar to a well with good petrophysical properties in the results paragraph.
https://www.geolog.com/files/pdf/MPD_accurateformationgas_ok.pdf
AIMHO of course.
GLA
Wacky
Hi TT
By all means if you want to post it, spread the word.
Atb
Wacky
Cmon England
Hi British Mike,
Easy answer is because MOU1 was to test multiple targets.
MOU4 would with the current known information only test or develop one target.
MOU4 target was in my opinion stumbled upon, as a missed target from the GRF1 well logs.
Thanks all for your comments.
Atb
Wacky
Hi All,
Some may think that I went Awol during the recent episode, that is most definitely not the case.
While the bean counters sh*t their pants and ran to the hills and the Anarchists turn up pouring scorn on anything resembling a hole in the ground, I have been educating myself on Mud logs and trying to work out what the MOU1 rns was actually telling us.
I believe the MOU1 drill was successful in its objectives, which are all in the presentations and annual reports for everyone to read.
"To test the western extremity of the MOU4 prospect and also the TGB 3 & 4 sands or the MOU2 prospect as per SLR cpr.
An added bonus was for MOU1 to become a production well, which it may still do depending on further results".
So where is my proof ?
In the rns you will notice ppm readings, the largest one being 36035ppm @ 1159m depth which is in the TGB 3 & TGB 4 sands or MOU 2 target zone.
FYI
Gas detector results are expressed in parts per million (ppm) of equivalent Methane in air on a volume basis, where 10,000 ppm is equal to 1% Methane or 50/100 units (depending on which scale is used).
see link on units of measure :
https://geospect.com/defining-a-unit-of-gas-in-mud-logging/
Moving on, although a good read, page 28 displays an excerpt from a basic Mud Log.
https://www.slb.com/-/media/files/oilfield-review/or2012spr03-mudlog
You will notice the abbreviations TG (trip gas) CG (connection gas) & FG (formation gas) in the columns followed by the letter U which denotes "units"
In the total gas units column towards the bottom the number 427U is displayed next to a "large bulge" which is indicating a show of Formation gas.
In comparison if we used the 100 units/ppm measurement rule, that would equate to (FG 36,035ppm / 10, 000ppm) = @ 360 units of gas.
Is this good or bad ?
These two short videos, will answer that question.
How to read a Mud Log, good explanation all the way through and the answer is towards the end.
https://swanenergyinc.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/how-to-read-a-mud-log-swan-energy-learning-center/
and the second video, What to look for in a Mud Log, just in case anyone missed the answer in the first video.
https://vimeo.com/33809731?from=outro-embed
This sentence from the rns also proves that the objective of testing the most western extremity of the MOU4 prospect, is successful.
Below 1,159 metres in the lower Guebbas and Hoot (using the stratigraphic nomenclature of the Rharb Basin) total background gas was from 0.7% to 1.5% (5,000 to 11,996 ppm C1) but with traces of heavier gases C2, C3 and C4. Formation gas shows of up to 1.67% (13,643 ppm total gases) were also recorded.
I will concede that the rns could have been worded better whereas the 1%/3% methane mentioned seems extremely low and caused confusion, but in the above context I would suggest MOU1 has delivered with hopefully more to come.
AIMHO of course.
GLA
Wacky
For the avoidance of any doubt,
A Tight hole.
https://www.petropedia.com/definition/3948/tight-hole
Gla
Wacky
Hi all,
Lull before the storm perhaps ?
An informative website (Delek Drilling) gives a fairly good uncomplicated insight into Appraisal Drilling, it explains in a basic manner how to interpret certain parts of the drill logs which have been published with regard to the Elf , GRF1 exploration well.
What I found interesting, is the colour red denotes gas saturations and a quick cross reference with the NU-Tech analysis info on our presentation, do show plenty of the same colour at various depths.
https://www.delekdrilling.com/geology/appraisal-and-development
I also take notice of the statement in our latest annual report, page 23.
https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2021/06/09225030/261085-Predator-plc-AR-Web.pdf
"Houston based NuTech’s modern petrophysical study of the GRF1 well had determined that the gross interval (equivalent to the lower Hoot sand, or TGB2a) between 1,386 and 1,413 metres TVD KB (27 metres) had up to 16.2% porosity and interpreted gas saturations in the range 37 to 51%. This interval is a new additional deeper gas target for the MOU1 well at approximately 1,400 metres drilling depth. MOU1 will create an opportunity to evaluate the extreme western edge of the MOU4 Prospect.
A gross interval between 1,635 and 1,925 metres TVD KB (290 metres) had gas saturations ranging from 30 to 77%.
This part is very telling.
"The NuTech petrophysical analysis supports the possibility of GRF1 being mis located on old 1972 seismic in a gas water zone downdip from an updip gas bearing structure".
Reminds me of a famous line from Indiana Jones, Raiders of the lost Ark.
"They are digging in the wrong place"
We will find out soon enough if we are digging in the right place.
AIMHO of course.
GLA
Wacky
Minister Youngs opening speech for the Trinidad and Tobago Section of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPETT) International.
https://www.energy.gov.tt/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Ministers-Speech-SPETT-Keynote-Address.pdf
16 pages but worth a read.
Page 12 is where he states he will be pushing Heritage personally to increase oil output through Enhanced production service contracts.
GLA
Wacky
We’ve got the funds to prepare further drill pads as per the March 12th rns.
“prepare additional follow-up drilling locations based on the new seismic interpretation over the past 12 months”
My money is on Mou2.
GLA
Wacky
Hi LochNez,
All info being released by the company at the moment is really good, the recent presentation is excellent but there is always something being held back and for good reason, always leave them wanting more and don't show your full hand to the opposition.
For example, the drawing in the presentation with regard to the lng proposal is really basic in the extreme, it gives you the idea of how it would look but so much missing on how it would actually work, a detailed drawing would give away to much information.
You are correct with the inch terminal gas to shore as shown and mentioned in the presentation and there is also the SimplyBlue/Shell offshore wind farm with an electrical connection to landfall, then read between the lines where we are suggesting back up power as per rns for when the wind don't blow PRD can make up the shortfall. I don't believe the company are talking about Gas in this particular context.
The question is then, how are we doing that ?, it can only be through backup power generation to support the wind farm.
Siemens are a provider of offshore power generation solutions so I do think this is something that would fit very well into Mag Mell.
https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/offerings/power-generation/power-plants/seafloat.html
This week should be really interesting.
AIMHO of course.
Atb
Wacky
Despite the need to build new gas-fired energy capacity and the growing requirement to import gas, the Department of Climate remains uncomfortable about the prospect of the Shannon LNG project going ahead.
Although the project proposes to construct a 600MW gas-fired power plant, which would add significant energy capacity to the Irish grid, the Department of Climate believes it is only fuelling increased energy demand rather than helping to decarbonise the energy sector.
The main red flag in this regard is New Fortress Energy’s plan to build a major data centre campus adjacent to the Shannon LNG terminal. The US company said the LNG terminal would occupy 100 acres of the 600-acre site in Co Kerry, with the remaining lands set to be used for a second development phase that would see the construction of eight data centre halls powered directly by a gas-fired power plant.
“A project like this seems incompatible with Ireland’s stated climate ambitions. When it comes to any developments like this we have to ask ourselves does this project increase or decrease the country’s overall emissions?” Paul Deane, an energy researcher at the MaREI centre, said.
Happy reading,
AIMHO of course.
GLA
Wacky