Member Info for Adelaide23

1. Field Type & Scale Mismatch

Przemyśl is a very large gas province field (billions of cubic metres of gas), not a tiny oil prospect like PXEN’s ~2 mmbbl OOIP; these are different scales and fluids, with very different economics.

2. Different Reservoir & Drive Mechanics

The Carpathian Foredeep’s successful fields often produce from large, continuous Miocene sand units. PXEN’s target is a fractured carbonate with limited pay thickness, which inherently yields lower deliverability and recoveries.

3. Historic Production ≠ Replicable Future Success

A field producing for 60 years means historically there were enough reserves and infrastructure. It does not mean every old play in the area is automatically economically viable with modern technology — many old discoveries in the Foredeep have already been depleted or were never commercially developed.

This is why I asked if it was viable ? I will put it to the next CEO investors meet to explain…

Why it was never developed (and still looks weak)

* Size is small: ~2 mmbbl OOIP likely translates to 10–20% recovery at best → 0.2–0.4 mmbbl recoverable in a fractured carbonate. That’s tiny.

* Low natural productivity: 45 bopd after stimulation is not strong, especially for onshore development.

* Thin, fracture-dependent reservoir: Carbonate fractures are notoriously heterogeneous. Flow rates often collapse after initial tests.

* Comparison kills it: Nearby fields like Grobla (1962) and Pławowice (1963) were thicker and larger, which is exactly why they were developed and this wasn’t.

* 1960s economics were harsher than today: If it didn’t clear the hurdle then, it tells you the margin was thin even with simpler operations.

Having seen the RNS this morning I put this to chatgpt and was somewhat concerned. Anyone know why prospex would be wasting time on this as reads as a poor decision to have bought into by previous ceo:

What would need to be true today for production to make sense

This only becomes credible if most of the following apply:

1. Ultra-low-cost redevelopment (tie-in to existing infrastructure).

2. Modern stimulation materially improves rates (acid + possibly micro-frac).

3. Oil price stays high and operating costs are minimal.

4. Upside beyond the mapped 2 mmbbl (e.g. missed fracture corridors).

Without those, this is a technically proven but commercially borderline micro-field.

⸻

Bottom line

* Geological credibility: ✔️ Yes

* Production credibility: ⚠️ Only at very small scale

* Investment-grade on its own: ❌ No

* Bolt-on / optionality play: ✔️ Possibly

If Prospex is pitching this as a meaningful production driver rather than a minor, low-risk add-on, that would be overstated.

I have just listened to Oxford nanopore ceo and cfo at the JP Morgan conference. It was very impressive and I would highly recommend logging on to listen to it. The share price will move upwards on this update. It was extremely encouraging. Too much to comment on here but well worth the listen. 😊

Apologies, I didn’t complete my last post so try There’s no evidence of Novartis and Oxford Nanopore working together on a leukemia drug. The current news relates to Terns Pharmaceuticals’ TERN-701, which showed strong CML trial results. It’s being compared to Novartis’s Scemblix — not co-developed with them. Oxford Nanopore isn’t involved in the drug programme.

Just to acknowledge Rocket’s confirmation as not correct from previous board member post: There’s no evidence of Novartis and Oxford Nanopore working together on a leukemia drug. The current news relates to Terns

Looks like this was the under lying reason for the share price drop:

Some big shareholders refused to back a resolution at the AGM.

The company has since gone around asking them why.

Shareholders basically said:

“Stop spreading yourself thin. Focus on the parts of the business that will actually turn into long-term value.”

The board is now framing this as perfectly aligned with what they were already thinking.

This is standard corporate diplomacy:

• They acknowledge dissatisfaction.

• They say the feedback matches their existing direction.

• They reassure everyone that they’re ‘refining strategic planning’ and focusing on ‘high-priority opportunities’.

Investors think the company has been trying to do too much, too broadly, and want tighter discipline.

Oxford Nanopore is publicly saying:

“We hear you. We’ll concentrate on the tech and markets that will actually pay off, not everything all at once.”

The new appointed CEO looks like just the man for the job to over see this happens.

Looks like ChatGPT is not entirely correct its self as RNS from Hvivo outlines this: hVIVO plc (AIM & Euronext: HVO), a fast-growing specialist contract research organisation (CRO) and world leader in testing infectious and respiratory disease products using human challenge clinical trials, has been notified that Cathal Friel, Chairman, sold 21,159,177 ordinary shares in the Company earlier today at 29p each ("the Sale") to satisfy institutional demand post the Company's recent capital markets event.

The shares sold were held through Raglan Road Capital Limited, a company owned and controlled by Cathal Friel and his spouse, and Horizon Medical Technologies Limited, an investment vehicle controlled by Cathal Friel.

Cavendish and Peel Hunt both gave their consent to the Sale.

Cathal Friel and the corporate entities detailed above no longer hold any ordinary shares in the Company.

ChatGPT says differently? Open to feed back on this one. The post mixes opinion with some selective interpretation of facts — it isn’t entirely correct or reliable. Here’s a breakdown:

“Shares crashed because of those red flags…” – HVivo’s share price has fluctuated, but attributing a fall purely to “red flags” like management share sales or facility funding is speculative. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

“Chairman dumping all his shares” – The chairman (Cathal Friel) has sold shares in the past, but not all of them. He’s reduced holdings while still maintaining an interest through Open Orphan’s legacy or direct stakes. So that claim is exaggerated.

“Cash is their big problem now” – HVivo’s last reported accounts (mid-2025) showed a solid cash balance with strong client advances. Cash isn’t a crisis point — they’ve been operating profitably. Suggesting they “need a placing” is an assumption not supported by the latest financials.

“New facility largely paid for by clients” – This is partially true but not necessarily negative. HVivo said client prepayments contributed to the funding of the new facility — a sign of forward bookings and demand, not distress. It’s working-capital efficient rather than a “red flag.”

So overall, the post is skewed and partly inaccurate. It reflects a bearish personal view rather than an objective reading of HVivo’s situation. The “placing needed” claim, in particular, isn’t backed by company data.

Because DCC’s profits and losses are tightly regulated and effectively passed through to the energy market, a fine or cost hit wouldn’t necessarily affect Capita’s valuation much — only if it changed future allowable revenues or led to reputational or contractual consequences.

Bottom line:

Smart DCC is consolidated within Capita’s group accounts. It’s just ring-fenced and operates on a regulated basis, so its financial impact on Capita is limited, but it’s absolutely still part of Capita’s balance sheet and ownership structure.

I think you will find this was before new management team took over that the car finance problems happened and due to previous old dated systems to what they have since upgraded to, saved them from having further compensation to pay out compared to the other banks. Richard Staveley of Harwood pointed this out in one of his vox market investor updates. You can listen to this on The Exchange with Richard Staveley of Harwood Capital on You tube.

Oxford Nanopore Investor Event

Friday, 14th November 2025, 09:00 AM (GMT)

The management team at Oxford Nanopore Technologies plc presents an event for investors. You can put your name down for the webcast on Oxford Nanopore web site. 😊

Https://kvgo.com/rbc/oxford-nanopore-technologies-plc

I think this presentation is worth watching and will perhaps reassure that this company is going to outperform next year. If you don’t want to listen to the entire presentation then I would say listen to the last 10 minutes where the CFO gives a concise summary of where the company is and where it’s heading. You will hear him make reference to a share holder that has enabled them to meet cash objectives ahead of time etc etc. Worth the listen rather than getting concerned over shorts and takeovers. I think all the answers are in this presentation. 🤞

ONT HQ building is leased from OSP. Yes, he has bought a fair bit of the OSP land but as the article you posted outlines , it will provide partnerships with the Oxford science parks other companies on the site. If you travel along the A34 you can see these impressive new buildings still under construction. He has other investments around Oxford on a growing scale not just in the sciences. Be interesting to see what ONT gets out of the trade visit with Reeves in Saudi . Interesting times ahead...

Thought this would be of interest to read as time ticks by on the ongoing waiting game for production to resume. Still no news on the transformer I noted from the last RNS which is perplexing to say the least.

• These kinds of incidents are not uncommon in oil and gas operations. Wireline tool losses and fishing jobs happen from time to time.

• The good news is that there are well-established fishing and recovery techniques (overshots, spears, magnets, cutters, etc.).

• In most cases, the obstruction can be removed, although it sometimes takes multiple attempts and can take days or weeks, depending on how the tool is stuck.

• Worst case: if recovery fails, the operator can sometimes push the tool and cable down past the safety valve and secure it in place, allowing safe production to resume. We hope and pray that it won’t go on for too long.

At this moment in time my concern is the length of time it is taking to overcome the equipment and technical issues at Viura 1B without explaining exactly what they are for the shareholders to have more of an understanding of the delay rather than no news at all. Lovely trading update but I can’t help think this is just to feed something to us positive in the mean time. There was also the issue of a transformer delay at El Rometral Surely it can’t take this long? Compensation for the transformer can’t go on indefinitely?

This is all loss of production for coming up to 5 months. I’m not surprised people are jumping ship but really we just need to be told exactly what is happening other than it’s receiving the upmost importance. I have just emailed HEYCO expressing this to them. Whether there is any sort of a response I’ll let you know. I’m sure Mark would have updated us so dont think it will hurt to give HEYCO. a nudge. 🤷🏼‍♀️

My thoughts too Jimzi! 😂

There’s a lot of speculation which is inevitable. At the end of the day we can watch the share price movements and volumes, smoke screens etc but it’s not going to make any difference to the final outcome. You can certainly see why LE has accumulated the volume of shares that he has. ONT is a very well run company and needs protecting . It has a strategic position being on the oxford science park. As a PI I hope that if and when the takeover happens it will see the share price a lot higher than it is presently. I hope it can remain on british soil on our british science park in oxford.

As I always say we have to wait and see what the future holds for Oxford nanopore. Hopefully we all will be a bit richer whenever that maybe. 🤞

Currently EIT and oxford nanopore buildings are next door to each other. The new campus that is currently being built for EIT is still on the OSP but further on the other side. I have provided a link that might explain a bit more on the connection with EIT, Oracle and ONP. No drama just facts. 🙂. This is directly from ONP website.

https://nanoporetech.com/resource-centre/always-on-eit-pathogena-and-oxford-nanopore-technologies-revolutionising-global-disease-detection

I'm not sure that there is enough shorting activity to be reasons behind share price drop. The share became overvalued back 13 August. The analysts were all in agreement. I think the CFO has always been open and cautious with his presentations and said back in the last investors meet in Feb/March that Trump administration has a bit of an impact. I don't think there is any thing under hand going on personally. Giving 16 months notice is a responsible thing for Gordon CEO to do. He was the cofounder and wants to make sure the transition runs smoothly and more importantly they get the right person for the job.

This is a complexed business not same as a CEO leaving Tescos. I expect he will be looking forward to some well earned retirement. As for mass migration of staff over to EIT would be interesting to know who is going over to them and where this info has come from? The only person I found was from last year Dr Emma Stanton who is now the CEO of EIT Pathogena . EIT and ONT are both located within Oxford Science Park. Even without a take over, ONT may be favoured as a sequencing partner across EIT research programmes. I think the share price will recover going into next year . Corrections to SP do happen and we can only wait and see what the future holds for ONT.