Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Morning
Following the somewhat bizarre conversation on here about areal extent and cubic size (sorry)
I just wanted to try to point out WHAT we are dealing with...
As...despite acres of posts...
I am very unconvinced this is understood by many on here (again sorry)
VERY BRIEFLY:
You might want to get your minds around this (you WILL want a strong coffee at hand and it's safest to sit down first)
The Guercif basin is about 60km x 50 kms
It is not homogenous (few hydrocarbon fields are) so please don’t rush off and multiply 60x 50kms (relax)
Prior to the opening of the Strait of Gibraltar...
the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea were fully connected ...
it was via the so called Rifian Corridor
This seaway flowed THROUGH what is now called the Guercif basin (does an ear prick up?)
The seaway was then CONSTRICTED ...during the Messinian period (do both ears prick up?)
Then...following closure of the very narrow passage ...
the 'Messinian desiccation event' (of the Mediterranean Sea) took place
(the event is widely known in geological circles...as the Messinian salinity crisis)
In addition...
Guercif is located where the Middle Atlas mountains terminate ...
it's where they come up against the Rif thrust belt
We know that tectonic subsidence persisted until the Messinian period
AND ‘sediment loading’ continued to drive subsidence for a very extended period of time
So what?
...we are looking for gas? (we will find oil too I think)
Of course, for the production of that, there has to be a ‘kitchen’ at depth ...
In order to ‘cook’ the faeces deposited...via kerogen...into gas and oil (and condensates)
and to have a LOT of depositional faeces is a ‘pretty good thing’
But...
What if there was an EXTENDED period of deposition
AND both a subsidence and adjacent uplift ?
Maybe someone on here can have a look at the total depths of the deposits?
Think thousands of metres in places
I will leave you to your own enjoyable research now...(I will happily fill in some blanks when I have more time )
but suffice to say that...
when I spoke a while ago re Leviathan
(offshore Israel...it changed the politics of that region ...
due to discovering 17 TCF...(have you fallen out of your chair /spilt your coffee yet?)
It was on the basis that Guercif shares several important characteristics
with other areas that have gone on to become globally important
Final thought ...
what if it has become evident from the logs of MOU1 ...
that there is not connectivity (via SGB2A sands) to MOU4
but via MULTIPLE CONNECTIVITIES to other locations as well?
ATB
Regards
GRH
Apologies for a missing word ...ONLY...at end of my previous post
Here is corrected version...
Fnal thought ...
what if it has become evident from the logs of MOU1 ...
that there is not ONLY connectivity (via SGB2A sands) to MOU4
but via MULTIPLE CONNECTIVITIES to other locations as well?
ATB
Regards
GRH
For a clue on depth this may be worth people looking at (for the ones that haven’t already)
https://www.petropedia.com/2/9808/oil/biogenic-and-thermogenic-gases-how-significant-they-are-in-energy-space
Where is everyone?
Regards
GRH
Trying to understand a mere fraction of what you're saying?
Well I am, to no avail, I must confess!
I'm here Grh, brilliant post earlier, very understandable re sediment etc(if conditions are favourable)....now i'm just watching Bb and waiting, waiting, waiting for news ............
Gla
Taff
Bdt
“what if it has become evident from the logs of MOU1 ...
that there is not ONLY connectivity (via SGB2A sands) to MOU4
but via MULTIPLE CONNECTIVITIES to other locations as well?”
If these sands are connected and supplied by an even deeper ‘kitchen’ does that mean they could continue to ‘refill’ once upper traps are found? Or have I gone the wrong way with that…?
Grh,
As far as your final thought,
Wasn't it already suggested in the mou 1 rns that there were indeed multiple connections to shallower wells?
Resevoirs not wells, sorry.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3014/
Interesting document on the levant basin. You have to click on the document to open a pdf.
I understood the 6 July RNS to suggest that MOU-4 was connected to various other reservoirs akin to the way MOU-1 seems to be. I had read GRH's msg below as suggesting that MOU-1 might not just be connected to MOU-4 but to others. I'm not sure I see how that is a good thing if correct as would not not lessen the de-risking of MOU-4 as that may be filled up more significantly by other connections instead?
The rns told us that the original MOU1 ‘bright spot’ target of TGB2 was not actually a separate structure. It was found to be a trap of the TGB2a/MOU4 target.
Remember TGB2a was only established as being an additional target because of Covid delays and the location of MOU1 meant that they could also de-risk on the western extremity at the same time.
But it has since been established that they are connected.
Adon30,
So sorry for appearing obtuse, but where does it say that a connection has been established?
TGB-2 now interpreted as western distal limit of the MOU-4 submarine fan ("MOU-4 Target")
What does "interpreted" mean please...........!
I've got this "the evidence is difficult to interpret"
All the best (Hey TT-T....... more than welcome over there........ :)
Chesh,
Shush!
I do think there is a distinction between "has been established" which indicates a degree of certainty and what has been set out in the RNS. The Company is confirming that the data supports an interpretation that MOU-1 is part of the MOU-4 structure, i.e. it may be saying it is more likely than not to be the case. It is not saying its beyond reasonable doubt.
For those wondering - Chesh made a simple post of a smiley face in another BB I've followed for some years (where Chesh is normally positive... probably) and I was blown away!
TTT these were PGs comments below. It gets confusing when people talk in MOU1 or MOU4 as these are locations. The targets themselves are the sands. In this instance TGB2 and TGB2a. Where the ‘bright spot’ is the TGB2 sands and the MOU4 target is the TGB2a sands. And from the pre drill presentation and report it can be seen that TGB2a is below TGB2. If anyone is having difficulty understanding this the presentation and report are best being read first.
“MOU-1 delivered a result that allowed us to de-risk the MOU-4 Target whilst unexpectedly validating the pre-drill seismic "bright spot", related to the presence of gas, as being attributable to the western limit of the MOU-4 Target and not an isolated target as previously interpreted above what was thought to be the pre-drill MOU-4 Target equivalent section."
So going back to GRHs original post other locations (or bright spot locations) may also be linked in a similar way to the TGB2a sands.
Such as sands at possible drill locations MOU6 or MOU3. Of course there may also be more as yet undocumented.
Adon30,
So, in short, we're sat on a giant f*** off Trap, and the point of Mou4 is just to absolutely confirm such?
And if it doesn't, were supposedly just sat on lots of small traps similar to SDX next door??
presumably not supposedly.
So MOU1 has found a trap in the TGB2 sands that could be anywhere between 50-188bcf in size (according to estimates). You could call this on it’s own fairly big/massive/huge. Only the testing will determine this size and prove if it is commercial.
The other ‘trap’ is the TGB2a sand (or MOU4 prospect) which was originally defined as 42km2 but could be up to 60km2. Who knows what size this is and has the true possibility to be a monster/leviathan/great big f*** off trap or however you wish to describe it. Only the drilling of MOU4, once a location is finalised, will prove this one way or another.
I believe there will also be shallow bcf ‘bubble’ traps similar to SDX all over the acreage. The seepage of gas and hydrocarbons in the basin would suggest this (topic discussed recently). Finding these however at this time would be less important than knocking on the monsters door.
Adon30,
Ok thanks,
So what is it specifically in the RNS of 6July, that resulted in the share price dropping so much?
PB - apparently the lack of the words 'pleased', 'discovery' or 'commercial'.