Has anyone else realised that easybrent is in fact purplepatch, it's diatribe against prd is it's revenge at the fact purplepatch bought into GEX at the highs and paniced and sold out as the GEX share price fell.
As to PRD, they are in the process of testing now, and only time will tell and how good the SJ system is, and of course if there's gas and it's commercial. If the testing is a success then the share price will be multiples of what it is now. GLA. |
kq1, I only said it take 30 min to pref each depth level, which is from the article Paul & Lonny loves to refer to. There are several levels and the testing will require plenty more time then the pref cycle, but 15 days has passed since the recent testing RNS and that is enough time to do plenty of work at MOU-3. If there was some positive results, they would have put it in an RNS. |
 @easybrent. When stating 'perforation to the depth probably necessary" I would have hoped it was obvious I was talking about depth of formation damage that needs to be penetrated, not how far down the borehole they need to go. For you to say "Sandjet only takes 30 minutes, so it must be finished by now" is bizarre. You could equally say that conventional perforation only takes 2 milliseconds, since that is how long the explosion takes. You seem to be completely ignoring how long all the other functions associated with perforation would take, and also ignoring the substantial time that it takes to perform flow and pressure testing.
I did make a mistake while typing - there are 17, not 13, horizons scheduled for testing as in the 6th June RNS - 4 in TGB4 sands, 13 in Ma & TGB6. My guess for the estimate of 'Extensive operations at MOU-3 are anticipated to last for at least five weeks' is based on two days for perforation & testing of each interval, plus a few for preliminary work.
Could you please let the other members of this board know if you are genuinely ignorant, or just poor at trolling? Thank you. |
"A further operations update will follow once the MOU-3 rigless testing programme is completed." |
kq1, when sandjet was used on the Lithuanian field, Predator management keep referring to, the reservoir was at 1800-2000m depth, deeper than the MOU-3 well. I really dont see why they would use longer intervals.
When putting all the pieces together from PRD RNS's, Lonny tweet's and previous use of sandjet, I think its pretty clear that Predator should have the result in from MOU-3 testing by now. If they where good, Paul & Lonny would have put out an RNS asap. |
MATD looks interesting today |
2p or 20p.....Bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gla |
There is clearly some misunderstanding of the process here by some folks. The Lonny tweet on 8th August showed surface testing of equipment - it also showed that the CT injector was not yet connected to the Christmas tree, meaning that no subsurface work could have begun at that time.
Once connection was completed, the borehole would need to be checked for debris, and if necessary, cleaned out. The bore would then be re-logged to ensure that the horizons to be perforated were in exact depth alignment. This needs to be done since the coefficients of elasticity and thermal expansion of drill pipe and coiled tubing are different, so you will see different depth readings with each.
Only then can you start perforation and testing. PRD are testing 13 intervals this time round, as opposed to 4 previously. Perforation to the depth probably necessary will take a lot longer than 30 minutes. Pressure and nozzle size will need to be optimised, this may require several CT runs for the first couple of horizons.
Unlike in Phase 1, pressure and flow testing will be performed, assuming perforation is successful. This will most likely be performed using intermittent flow testing. An initial pressure reading is taken, and the horizon under test will be allowed to flow for a period of perhaps 4-6 hours, with any declines in pressure and flow rates recorded. The well is then shut in for a few hours, and the tests repeated. The well is then shut in again, and opened once more for a third set of measurements. These data sets can then be used to project both long term flow rates and the volume of connected reservoir.
To think that all this could have been done by now is misguided. It was quite clear in the RNS of 7th August that results would be reported at the end of MOU-3 testing, and no intermediate information would be released. "A further operations update will follow once the MOU-3 rigless testing programme is completed. The Company does not intend to provide an operations schedule for testing at present as plans remain flexible and may be modified depending on initial test results and operational efficiencies." I would not be at all surprised, in a success case, if additional horizons were also tested, including the high-pressure 11m shallow sands currently behind two layers of casing.
Results will be announced when they are ready, so I suggest you enjoy a couple of weeks (at least) break. |
Easybrent leave it out.... you are trolling. That was pathetic. |
Easybrent, if you read the detail in the Company rns from the 6th June, you will get a flavour of why it's not as simple as you think. They have also said SJ ops will last for a minimum of 5 weeks (from when they actually started). Still, you might be right, and an SPE article from 26 years ago might be more reliable ? |
2Dinvestor, if you read the SPE article (James S. Cobbett) from 1998 which Predator refers to regarding sandjet test you would see that sandjet testing is not a very time consuming. The perforation cycle at each depth is only around 30 min. With four horizon to test in the MOU-3 well, they should have results by now considering that surface testing was going on 8th Aug. |
Apples and pears. Phase 1 was quick because the perf guns didn't work. SJ a different ball game. |
When Predator conducted the Phase 1 test of MOU-1 and MOU-3, the testing took 10 days (9-19 Feb 2024). They tested four intervals in both wells at that time. For the current Phase 2 test, equipment was at site on 6 Aug and on 8 Aug Lonny tweeted a picture of Sandjet surface test going on. Given that they tested two wells last time which took 10 days one would think that they should have completed the current MOU-3 test now as 13 days has passed since Loony tweet of the Sandjet surface test. In my experience any positive news would have been reported quickly. |
No probs....
gla |
Excellent post, mariop. |
Thanks for copying |
It's done.....C&P to PRD, LSE....
gla |
Bold doing his level best to tell you the Company needs money:
Does he not realise T and T was farmed out?
Does he not realise Ireland could be farmed out next year or this year?
Does he not realise pre-sales of Biogenetic gas could happen reasonably quickly?
Does he not realise the Company were mauled when they went to the City last August and raised £7m?
Does he not realise money is looked after by the frugal board?
Does he not realise that PG and Lonny have big skin in the game and will not want City dilution?
Does he not realise that Paul feels the share is undervalued and equity from the City is vastly expensive.
Does he not realise g and a costs are very low?
Does he not realise the Company has not been drilling since last year?
Does he not realise the Company may even be generating EBITDA in T and T?
Does he not realise that there was £6.5m in the bank 7 months ago at 31/12/2023.
Does he not realise that MOU 5 will only cost £1.5m to drill.
Does he not realise the Company is debt free.
Somebody enlighten the unresearched troll please. |
kq1,
"I would very much like to see the actual report - it is not clear if the 6 TCF is unrisked (ie the total volume) or 12% risked (ie total volume is 100/12 x 6 = 50TCF)"
IMV it's pretty clear if you have some understanding of how these numbers are usually arrived at. And it makes no sense for the company to be comparing the CPR's risk factor (12%) to its own (50%) unless they are using a common *unrisked* number.
(If they have a common risked number then the different risk factors would imply they have very different unrisked numbers. But those unrisked numbers would have to be exactly in inverse proportion to their risk factors, which is vastly improbable.) |
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
Hot Features
Premium
